

DOCTOR YESHUA

By R. D. GROSE

Copyright 2012 R. D. GROSE

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This e-book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This e-book is not to be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, then please purchase an additional copy of this e-book for each recipient.

If you did not purchase the copy of this e-book you are reading, or if it was not purchased for you exclusively, then please purchase your own copy from Smashwords.com.

Thank you for respecting the effort the author put into this work for your enjoyment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Sparkling Snow-Part One

Chapter 2. Interlace

Chapter 3. Sparkling Snow-Part Two

Chapter 4. The Scriptures

Chapter 5. Sparkling Snow-Part Three

Chapter 6. Critique Upon Critique

Chapter 7. Sparkling Snow- Part Four

Chapter 8. A Play On Words

Chapter 9. Eye Witnesses

Chapter 10. The Symposium

Presented by The Council- R Grose president

A philosophical-historical novel

..............................................................................

This book is a work of fiction. Except for Biblical characters, any resemblance to real persons

past, present or future is purely coincidental

Superscript numbers in the text refer to items in the Appendix

Bible texts have been electronically downloaded

from **BIBLESOFT** TM PCSTUDYBIBLE software version 4.2-b

### 1. Sparkling Snow-Part One

" **She** was a dark and stormy woman – she was a killer – she was my mother." He put the book down as suddenly as he had picked it up from the well-used, small side table beside the comfortable, old fashioned, over-stuffed chair. Without thinking, he put his glasses on top of the book and started to rub his right eye, his reflexive-conscious mind believing it would prevent the tick from starting. "Why does Marge continue to think I want to read stuff like this?" Anton wondered to himself..."Just because it's on the 'best sellers list'." "Somewhere near the top" she had said. "How can such drivel be a best seller?"...the wonder continued. Under the glasses the rubric stared up at him. "Ms. Miller is destined to become one of the country's top mystery writers. Her thrilling narrative style will keep you glued." "A thriller of a tale well told deserves a permanent place on your bookshelf." "With books of this quality Miller is on her way to becoming an honored member of this country's top writing professionals." "This is a classic thriller that will keep you in suspense for hours. You won't put it down until the end!"..."Miller is positively a writer to watch, with the marvelous knack of getting under the skin."

"I don't want to watch her write", Anton mused; "not when it takes her hours to imperfectly perfect just one sentence--she admits to that. Now if she is beautiful-- maybe I'll watch her watch her watch perhaps" Anton snickered. "Peer back slapping must not hurt in book advertising". Anton continued to muse, "Something that wouldn't hurt me that is for sure". A familiar conflict of emotions welled up. "Books are my nemesis". Anton fell into his habitual melancholic meditative state. The right upper eyelid started its weak tick. He rubbed it away without thinking, but it returned. "Read this book. Write a book. Be booked!" He shot up from the chair and stared out the window determined to force his thinking positively. A fresh overnight fall of snow greeted his gaze. It sparkled in the early morning sun, clinging to the branches of the nearby trees. "Oh how pretty went the ditty; Oh how hollow mocked the swallow". Another neuropathic aberration of mine Anton thought. Why these associations....why don't they die away with time. His disparate thinking was interrupted by a call from below: "breakfast".

But it, the interruption, didn't last. Without thinking, he plopped back into the chair; hearing but not hearing; his mind now focusing on wife Marge---"I should throw this book in her dumb-fat- face", Anton raged, although "Mr. Meek" didn't have the courage to tell her of his resentment. He stewed. "Why did I marry her 'Highness' anyway...?" Anton's mind cleverly eschewed the wife to avoid being booked again and again. In moods worse than this he hated everything about her. "I, Anton Winfred Frenkel, solemnly swear to marry this scrawny bitch next to me"..."what's her name anyway--"..."Marge Donna Peterson". "So I was just an associate prof.,....so I lied to her...so I wasn't a full professor yet...so what, she wouldn't have cared...neither of us cared...get married...all our friends were...some friends...they arranged our meeting....Marge Peterson meet Professor Anton Frenkel" (His Royal Majesty). "I didn't tell her about that and I sure as hell didn't tell her about the party or the booking...and I didn't pry into her either....." Anton suspected in later years that she was holding something back too... "But let's not rock the waves. Throwing rocks is not smart when life is good." She was a 'Social Studies' major. "Oh yes, don't forget the minor in literature (hell what did she call it..."being a playwright" or "writing script for a play". I teased her about "play-right" and "script-ture" and she didn't tease back. She could have--my being a scripture buff, even teaching a course on religion. I thought she didn't know but she did". "Now it's a different story...she is braver...barbed teasing". "No, that's what I do!"..."No, that's not what I do!" I responded defensively. "Esteemed professor of philosophy that's me...with a no longer scrawny wife....maybe I could just run away from this 'good life'; start over with an attractive broad...one wanting to sleep with me..." Anton slunk deeper into the chair. He hadn't seen it coming. It sounded good at first...a private away from it all den. "A soon to be popular 'cave'", she said. First came the overstuffed chair, then used book cases were added, and then a used futon for "naps".

He glanced around the room. Design change, not right Wright did write...a ditty Anton had made up shortly after they had purchased the suburban "Prairie House" because of its distinctive F.L. Wright design that the builder had mercifully made more livable. Not in good shape when they bought it on the cheap, he still had to borrow money from Father and brother; her family chipped in more than his. "Marge took care of the paperwork thank God." It was their first, non-rented, house and they both loved it dearly; but it was Brother Frank, Frank F. Frenkel Jr., who saved them, driving some 70 miles on weekends to do restoration which was his hobby. Anton and Marge did what they could under his supervision; all the grunt work every evening besides the weekends. "Seventeen years ago we started", Anton reminisced. It was a small upper story room with a low ceiling and clearstory windows high up against it; wood framed rectangular windows, maybe 14 inches in height around three sides. "Well not all the way around three", Marg routinely corrected, "dam her anyway".... then Marge had....when was it anyway". Anton shook his head, "how the years had flashed by". He wasn't good at remembering the past, after the booking incident.

Marge had complained for some time about the snoring which caused her lack of sleep and the "frequent headache". "Maybe I could find a real soul mate!", Anton continued the musing. Soul mate-hood was a concept Anton had discovered in the not too distant past. Subconscious resentment and hatred that still brewed mildly away was interrupted by: "Anton dear, your breakfast is cold...are you sleeping again?" The tone of voice was anything but pleasant and the "Anton dear" stabbed a bit of coldness into his heart. Anton was in for it he knew, but that didn't prevent the slightly angry undertones from invading the response: "Coming" was shouted down the steep stairway.

Marge was equally upset---she stirred the pot. "Sit down...I don't want any cheek pecking thank you. Why should I bother fixing this nice breakfast when you're too lazy to get your fat ass down here? One more time and you can fix your own breakfast from now on...I'll find someone else to fix a breakfast for...someone who will appreciate it". Marge was a little shocked at her degree of vitriol---it had boiled out of nowhere. To avoid further degeneration of the relationship, which was happening more often lately, Marge picked up the morning paper and left Anton to the stew-pot of his negativity. The last his critical eye saw was the poorly concealed birth defect.

Anton looked over the plate of delicately scrambled eggs dejur' where the hot delicious vapors were no longer rising from tiny volcanoes like spiral nebulae. Anton was not hungry in the least. He stared past the dormant volcanoes and islands of small toast wedges pre-jellied with home-made preserves, past all sumptuous settings, to the polished wood of the chair back; relieved it was no longer fronted by the look of an angry woman. His childhood home life hadn't been like this. Anton's father had been a highly respected "man of the cloth"-- a second generation cloth.

Marge's family was less noble, but moneyed. Her father Anton had never met, he having died prematurely; her Mother never remarried being content with financial management. Although a small but sprightly woman, she had never under-revealed her dominance. In contrast, Marge infrequently revealed her hatred for her father and that, only early on. Reasons for it were shrouded in reticence....? Anton, self absorbed with profession, hadn't probed and now had forgotten about it to the point where caring to know didn't exist. She had no trouble with education financing, but social awkwardness in those years was another matter entirely. While illiterate tribes have no compulsions about educating their young in the ways of life—in pleasing techniques---, in hers and in Anton's family especially, sex education came by way of divine osmosis. Marge was discretely demure and Anton found her well trained in the passive state; not that he knew better, just suspicious.

Their adopted son, Tom, had disappeared shortly after high school, not all that long ago but not fast enough for him--- in search of something, not adoption for sure; Tom knew all about that too well. There had been little contact since and then only with the pseudo Mother. Anton no longer brought the "son" subject up either...there was already too much dissention over it....Anton was trapped..."You get your act together or I'm out of here!"...." "I hate this trapped feeling; I want out too!" No wonder the son imitated. It was the embarrassment....they all imaged it in their remembered imagination. "How can a distinguished professor of philosophy...one preaching the enlightenment of the human mind be such a family failure?" Bob (Anton's boss's boss) had said that hadn't he? "Can't you.... we need a chair we can be proud of". Anton stared at the polished wood absently, unaware of the irony.

"His brother was successful as a practicing psychologist with a large client base---that mollified Father some", he thought with a degree of jealousy. Anton had at least told Marge early on Father wasn't pleased that neither son had joined the cloth; so both had, with scholarship aid, "worked their way through". Wife of the cloth had nodded in agreement with husband—eyes downcast. There had been happier times.

It was her eyes that had caught his attention on that double date. Light blue with hints of irregular grays, greens, and browns. Without realizing he had become mildly addicted to the tiny diamond like sparklets of light; high intensity diamonds given off from energy within—without the benefit of reflected light. It only happened when she was upset. Anton also didn't realize his unrecognized inner need for some sign of affection, which was alleviated by tears of hurt that formed around those beautiful flowery irises. Her shyness attracted Anton, her differentiation plied his ego. Her attractiveness mirrored his; they expressed it as love frequently enough, but little did they realize its superficiality. Marge, at five eight, was above average in many ways, but still less than say Anton, many inches taller and well above average relatively. And they were the same in some ways, different in others as are the sexes. Marge liked socializing once married and of course shopping—need it be said, not Anton. The joy of pregnancy, birth, and motherhood was denied her even though married. Tom had been a mild disaster. Both had little interest in or ability in sports; he golfed because it was an expected, perhaps a demanded activity, for professional advancement. Luckily for Marge it was not. So Marge escaped reality by being an avid reader which would have helped her scholarship had it happened earlier. Marge was no dummy even relative to her mate, just in different ways. Once engaged in it, she was much superior to Anton in verbal discourse, and was a latent leader. It was much later that Anton would come to understand their unshared secrets had, unbeknownst to them, undermined their marriage, and prevented the intimate exchange they had both come to desire. Physical was there, but not the mental. Trust was obvious by its absence, but the absence was not made verbally overt.

Anton got up from the sumptuous breakfast table, and left the meal uneaten, absorbed in thought. "A distinguished professor of philosophy ought to be able to get himself out of a philosophical mess shouldn't he?" He climbed the steep stairs in thought, slowly, head down, shoulders slumped..."he taught a religious course didn't he"....? He stopped at the seventh tread unconsciously; then, in retrospect, aware that he had. After a brief reflection, he resolutely hurried up the last steps to read and to think!

## 2. Interlace

**Professor** Anton Frenkel entered the lecture hall with a quick confident step that belied the uncertainty he felt....what reception would the lecture he had under-prepared receive? Certainly he himself was well received.

"Good Morning."

"Good Morning", most of the class responded.

"As you might not know, this course is concerned with mankind's relentless search for meaningful expression of the unknowable...a search for meaning, a yearning to understand mankind's relationship to the 'ultimate' whatever that may be." Anton made no bones about marching right into his abstract subject material. "There is a conundrum in this search between the material and the anti-material which we humans, at least many of us, label 'spiritual' or perhaps the 'spiritual realm'. The oft repeated words of an unknown sage are applicable to materialistic searches, "the more we know the more we find there is to know". But this philosophical statement does not pertain to maters we will consider in this course; especially that which is spiritual in nature where it seems near impossible to know anything...certainly for certain. So what motivates humans to continue this relentless, endless and seemingly fruitless searching in the material and especially in the anti-material and in face of such experiential realities? I think this is a good question, and probably an imponderable one. As imponderable as it may be, we will still ponder it some in this course.

"We humans are faced with what may be an ultimate contradiction. As mentioned, in the material universe there appears to be an increasing, and perhaps unbounded arena of subject material to be understood. And in each aspect of the arena, the subject material has an ever increasing, perhaps unbounded requirement for more knowledge; knowledge requiring ever increasing sophistication, in requisite depth of understanding....and ingenious inventions. Devices invented solely for further exploration--- devices of ever increasing sophistication that can only be provided by the creativity of the human brain. Now observe the contrast. While the non-material universe also seems to provide a limitless arena for understanding, Mother Nature has provided only a de minimus means for achieving it, at least at this stage of brain evolution. Some world authorities advise a meditative 'no think' as the way to understanding non-reality; but as a recent author pointed out: spending hours in non-thinking isn't productive in the real world. Perhaps, I might add by analogy, this could be true in trying to gain some understanding of the non-real 'world' as well. I think you will find this course to be an exciting intellectual ride, so let your brains hang on tight!"

Anton flicked on the power-point projector; the following quotation appeared on the screen.

"God defines itself by handiwork—the tapestry of

existence; pours the hope of eternity into our

genetics, outfits our brains to access other

dimensions, rewards our spiritual efforts by

uniting with all, an intelligence that pervades

every atom and every nanosecond, all time

all space, in the throes of our death

in the ecstasy of life"

\- adapted from Fingerprints of God

by Barbra Hagerty

Anton pointed to the screen and continued: "Mankind's searching and yearning for a relationship in the non-material universe, if there is such a thing, is mostly manifested in the countless teachings of a religious nature found throughout the world. While teachings such as this exist in both written and oral form, the latter exclusively occurs in the so called primitive cultures. Written teachings are found in the so called civilized cultures. It is only the written form of teachings that we will consider, and then only for the most dominant of these teachings, those which encompass the religions of the vast majority of the earth's population. Written expressions, or teachings, of a religious nature are called scripture by many if not most people. Those who spend a great deal of time studying religious expression around the world universally come away with the impression of how basic a need it seems to be (which is not found in other primates). It ranks in importance with other basic needs other than those essential for survival, as for instance dancing (which not only primates enjoy, but other species as well, especially students) [laughter].

A part of yearning for expression is found in the concept of spiritualism which is difficult to relate in written form. It is usually associated with a striving for a relationship outside of our finite minds.... with an entity, or entities outside of physical reality....the terminology god, or gods, is common, and its equivalent in other languages and cultures. We will only be concerned with written expression translated into English where necessary.

Mankind, in its great wisdom, has in recent times separated the search for meaning and the yearning for an ultimate relationship into mutually disrespected fields of endeavor, namely Philosophy and Religion. Since this course is really about the analysis of scripture which contains both religious precepts, and philosophical precepts, an arbitrary division of Philosophy and Religion contained within scripture is ignored. On the other hand, a balanced study of philosophical concepts per se, will not be undertaken (especially modern controversial concepts). You should understand that religion and philosophy are not considered synonymous in this lecture series, but on the other hand each can be contained within the other.

We will see that Scripture is found to contain ambiguities, because it reflects both the subjective and imaginative interpretation of its writers. Since ambiguity is found in every arena of life, it is manifested in scripture by the writers. Any analysis of Scripture must reflect this ambiguity, and so underlying the various themes in our lectures is that very concept --- ambiguity--- found especially in the concepts of religion, spirituality, and myth. As an undercurrent, it will remain so, and ambiguity will not be treated up front so to speak as a major topic of interest, but it under girds all of what this course is about. Certainly the ambiguity of "reality", as humans perceive it, makes it impossible to conclusively prove anything regarding the interface, or void between reality and non-reality, especially as it affects "belief systems" or "world views". Atheists can absolutely convince themselves of the correctness of their belief even to the point of trying to convince others, as can the theist. Since absolute proof is impossible, only a degree of probability can be assigned to a limited range in the limitless range (as it would seem) of human thought.

This morning I'm going to kick off-a misanthropic analogy, appropriate to this fall semester's beginning, with a talk on some overall philosophy, some of which is outside the scope of this course's boundaries—this is Religion 353 in case some of you think you are in the wrong lecture hall. By the way, what this course is not about is the relationship between religious "world views" and society structure—for example: say a given group of more-or-less like minded people of a certain faith interacting with the government structure for that group. To paraphrase recent book titles, I can form a disclaimer---we will not be considering how religious world views become "evil" or "lethal". However, we will be laying some philosophical groundwork that may in the future tackle something like that in another course. Let's look again at Hagerty's philosophy:"

"God defines itself by handiwork—the tapestry of

existence; pours the hope of eternity into our

genetics, outfits our brains to access other

dimensions, rewards our spiritual efforts by

uniting with all, an intelligence that pervades

every atom and every nanosecond, all time

all space, in the throes of our death

in the ecstasy of life"

\- adapted from Fingerprints of God

by Barbra Hagerty

After reading the slide out loud, Professor Anton continued: "If one accepts Hagerty's philosophy, isn't one merging the immaterial with the material? Is one not merging religion and science? I think you might agree with my assessment...that there are now seeds of such unification being cast by observant intellectuals in both the religion and science fields. If my assessment is true, in the future, perhaps even in your lifetimes, this course will be taught by a scientist [laughter]. Now then, the threads of mankind's invisible imagination that intertwine religious, spiritual, and mythical thought are further interlaced, and link the reality we perceive experientially as humans with the non-physical outside of our being. Frankly, I find these imaginative threads have resulted in a confused mess that resists untangling. This is a direct result of the ambiguities, superstitions, myths, speculations, and uncertainties which confront us. In reality, it seems a deeper study of religiosity and spirituality defies rational explanation, and enters the realm of mythology. One can easily conclude this by reading the various books on world religions; some of which we will study in this course. Some kind of belief in an entity, a non-reality—a spiritual concept, a god, or gods is found in every region of the world.....past and present. Most often there are attempts to verbalize some concept of afterlife...that there exists something more than the reality we sensually perceive. This, of course, does not mean all people are religious or spiritually minded, one way or another, although some claim almost all thought processes along these lines are religious even by those claiming to be totally irreligious (e.g. atheists). An agnostic may say that the existence of gods cannot be known experientially, or with certainty, but still acknowledge some kind of supernatural belief or spirituality. And those that deny the existence of non-materiality or an 'after-life' seem more prone to fear their death.

In modern times the amount of written material on these subjects defies total assimilation. And yet, if agreement can be reached, it would be that the terms 'spiritual' and 'religious', especially spiritual, in themselves defy agreeable definitions. It would seem that they are matters of individual interpretation or inner feelings, and are for most people, inexpressible in materialistically related terminology. Since in-depth expression may be impossible, we will content ourselves with just a brief overview of these three arenas that are so interwoven; religion, spirituality, and myth, beginning with religion. Let's look at another quotation."

"The panorama of the world's religions is fascinating

and complex. From the earliest

times to the present day, religious beliefs have

flourished, producing countless rituals and

symbols.....[one] may be excused for feeling

bewildered at the infinite variety of religious life."

from WORLD RELIGIONS

by Parrinder

While some claim "religion" is beyond defining, dictionaries do try, but the definitions are generously vague: "a devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness [to it]; conscientiousness [to it]; pious affection or attachment [for it]"(1). With this sort of definition, most people have some form of religious thinking. A more limited definition of religion more in keeping with this course work might be: a gathering of individuals to hear or discuss philosophical/moral ideas based on certain "scripture". As mentioned in the syllabus, this course is about such scripture, in particular the Bible, and about the person or persons who were in someway fundamentally responsible for the scripture, but as I alluded to earlier, I am taking the course beyond the syllabus.

Many interviewers have concluded that most religious minded folks don't know much about the scriptures behind their religion (if that scripture does exist), or if they have studied it, don't remember much, or are confused by the complexity and seeming contradictions their scriptures contain. But then they may not really care since all religious scripture seems to be this way. A book, one critical of the Mormon religion, espouses this thought explicitly—the thought that the official scripture behind that religion is of no consequence to the lay followers of that religion. We will study the Book of Mormon in this course to see if you agree that the claim may be true.

As attested to by the books on world religions, writings on spiritual and religious matters go back as far as we have written records. Likewise, the evidence found for religious ceremonies go back further than that. Such ancient ceremonies lead some analysts to conclude that spirituality and religious expression are separate entities. This certainly seems to be the case between religious dogma, and what is called "spirituality" in the contemporary and popular expression..." I am spiritual not religious". On the other hand, there are those who comment on what is "written on the human heart"—an anthropological \- analogous - metaphor if there ever was one....isn't language wonderful? And what is written on the human heart?—the most un-evolved parchment known to modern science. According to many it is "the golden rule"; found in all the dominate religions. Its origin is lost in antiquity—millennia before Jesus—; but it seems Jesus was the first, if not indeed, the only authority, to cast it positively. This next slide presents his saying in its somewhat abbreviated English form:"

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD

HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU

Others find, especially in the Bible, that it is "Love from God" that one should pass on to others. If love for others is formulaic in religion, why then, many ask, does it seem that religions are involved in so many of the bitter conflicts that daunt history? Why is it that people claiming to be religious seem to live a life in contradiction of love? Worse still are those who rationalize religion as a justification for gaining power over, and doing damage to others. If good and evil abounds in the human heart...is evil also written on the human heart by the same designer?—presuming of course, such a designer-creator - higher intelligence "god" exists. Incidentally, surveys conclude, most humans do so believe. Some like to disassociate a "intelligent designer" from the "God concept" to be "politically correct"....a controversy we will stay clear of. However, it should be pointed out, what is good for some people may not be completely good for others; and, conversely, what is considered evil by some people is not completely evil to others...where, if any, is the common moral code? It would seem that the golden rule is written faintly, if at all, on the hearts of some men.

Some say all religions could and should unite everyone in the "brotherhood of man" under the banner of the golden rule. Why then does it seem impossible to achieve this? One author gives the following opinion; "each religion has interests of its own" This interest is reflected in their dogma—the scripture they treasure—which gives accounts of God(s) or higher power(s) and the way(s) to salvation or enlightenment that are deeply and irreconcilable different. Some say a way to achieve unity is to observe the principle from the Chuang-tzu (Zen Buddhists) "the Sengyo"... roughly translated as: "........Words are to transmit meaning; keep the meaning and forget the words". That principle could possibly work if we could remember only the meanings of the golden rule and the brotherhood of man, but mankind doesn't, and the non-remembering or not-observing is the underlying cause of man's self inflicted woes. But enough pondering religion; let's go on to consider spirituality."

Humans seek communion with the spiritual so to

bring self in harmony with it.

"SPIRIT-from Latin spiriare, to blow, to breathe"

adapted from "Webter's New Universal

Unabridged Dictionary" second edition

and from Toyenbee

The words "spirit", "spiritual", "spirituality", and the like are difficult, if not impossible to rigorously define with a materialistic connotation as any perusal of a dictionary will reveal. Books on religion can use these words profusely in hundreds of pages without saying anything about what these "spirit" based words mean. If I search my computer BibleSoft ™ program for the word spiritual in the included software commentaries etc., the number of entrees exceeds the program's capacity...many thousands...but definitions are not offered. It's not a class assignment, but I recommend you try this on your own computer. Dictionary definitions for the word "spirit" list different connotations ranging from apparitions to vapors(1). The word spiritual can be either noun or adjective. As a noun it can be either a religious song or "a spiritual thing or concern, especially church matters" (not exactly non-circular). As an adjective, a large dictionary can give six major connotations ranging from congruence with the word soul (also indefinable) to ecclesiastical (religion) or even to the supernatural (what-ever that is). Perhaps, spiritualism, in broad terminology, could be thought of as the mind's thinking about itself in relation to a broad scope of non-materialism outside of itself. Perhaps, it is a longing for a relationship not found in society or with fellow minds. This spirituality manifested in religious activity by many is unique to the human mind and, so far, has not been observed in any other kinds of primates, animals, or insects, (the praying mantis aside of course [some class laughter]). While details of spiritual thinking appear to be as varied as individual humans are, broad patterns can be observed. A dichotomy is observable in whether or not there even exists a non-material aspect to give attention to, which then takes on a religious motif of its own. Giving attention to humanism exclusively seems to satisfy the soul expectations of certain people.

Speaking of "soul"—definitions of human attributes, besides spirituality, which are commonly acknowledged such as soul, heart, mind and so forth are also, so far, impossible to come by. This blockage adds to the impossibility of clearly expressing spirituality (and religiosity for that matter) in written form. This failure in communication is observable in the most notable of prestigious writers, whose attempts to quantify such concepts are not found to be beyond the criticism of their peers.

Some people who consider themselves spiritual find their objects of worship in nature, believing God or gods "inhabit" all things animate and inanimate (animism) which has, in the opinion of many, close ties with mythology. Others who place great importance in conferring with human spirits (both alive and dead) are in effect worshipping these entities and again delving into the realm of mythology. Many are the books laying claim to spiritual insights written by channelers, gurus, mystics, mythologists, and so on. Invariably, they do not describe spirituality but instead bring "insights" to the philosophies of human conduct in physical reality. There does not appear to be a book describing "spirituality". Interestingly enough, people who claim to have gone to heaven and returned, like Mohammed and the Apostle Paul, give no description of "heaven"' which, one would think, should have been a very spiritual event worthy of being remembered. Those describing "near death" experience are quite vague in remembering what they experienced on "the other side"; but then, what they do remember is remarkably similar overall.

So what do people mean when they claim to be spiritual? I think the best and perhaps the only way of expressing it meaningfully is found in what it is not. It is when the mind is not concerned with physical realities. In principle then, there exists a range of spiritualism from a person who never considers the non-physical to the person who thinks only of the non-physical. It is doubtful if there is or ever has been a person exhibiting these extremes. A more accurate assessment could be that people range from the very materialistically oriented to the very spiritual. Examples are for instance, the incessant shopper in contrast to an oriental monk ritualistically meditating in a monastery. Let us now go on to give our attention to mythology."

Myth-an unverifiable legendary narrative presenting

a set of beliefs especially concerning God(s)

or national heroes or events.*

*Adapted from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I suppose most of us have been mythed at one time or another (pun intended)[more laughter]. No, I did not intentionally imitate a lisp mind you. This form of the word myth, i.e. "mythed", is not officially recognized in our language as a consultation of your dictionary will show. This is rather unfortunate because a bigger spectrum of words for the concept of myth can be useful in idea communication. Now, as just mentioned, our vocabulary does not officially include meanings for the myth concept that are in the passive sense instead of the active sense (at least in the dictionaries I have consulted). For instance a future imperfect intransitive passive sense would be good to have; an acted upon sense, by a word like mythologized as in "I will have been mythologized". To be linguistically precise mythology is not a construct of myth but originally connoted the study of myths. This distinction is gradually being lost. "I will have been mythologized" is a true statement (for me and probably for many of you as well); because in our ambiguous world we are continuously exposed to myths and it is very difficult at times, perhaps impossible, to distinguish between myth and what may be non-myth or "truth"...even the word "true" is itself subject to ambiguity...famously put forth by Pilate in "What is Truth?". Passive myth word forms can be useful especially in dealing with the subject matter of this course. I, for one, certainly have been mythed...Santa, the Easter bunny, and certain other mythological traditions in our culture I embraced in my youth, some in times beyond that, and there are certain "institutions", transcendental in nature, to which I am still vulnerable. The problem is the difficulty in distinguishing myth from non-myth. We adults can put Santa, the bunny, and Greek/Roman Gods in their proper categories (hopefully), but beyond that it gets messy (as it was for the Greeks and Romans of their day). What do you think about witchcraft, séances with ancestors, tea leaves and cat entrails, miracles...or telepathy, inspiration, clairvoyance, seers, god(s), prophets, astrology, or spiritism, or angels, and how about animism or heaven, or a "living/loving God", evolution of species, the Big Bang, and other esoteric scientific theories...a very long list in the making. Don't think I have some magic criteria to help with discernment; I don't. And furthermore, at one time or another, a number of these items and others, not listed, have seemed quite reasonable to me...some still do.

In my research I have not uncovered any scripture which cannot be found immune to accusation of myth containing. This is especially true if we apply the definition for myth given on the slide. Take the Bible for example in its "story" about the creation of man or the "flood". These stories are certainly unverifiable in a scientific sense, yet may contain a representation of events that really happened, as some analysts posit. The flood myths, found in many cultures, are frequently given as an example of this factual basis. And the Bible's version may seem more plausible than similar "stories" found in other cultures (and which may still be labeled "myth" by analysts). However, those who maintain that such stories in the Bible are "inspired by God" and therefore are literally true; must do so on the basis of "faith" alone. Therefore a conclusion is, as I already mentioned, only a degree of likelihood or probability of truth can be assigned to religious, spiritual, and mythical concepts; and this holds even for past or ancient historical events recorded as we now have them. Anything beyond a statement of probability requires "faith". Faith is a word that is also subject to ambiguity depending on the source; but for this course I prefer one dictionary which simply states faith is, (as the primary definition): "unquestioning belief".

"Faith-Unquestioning Belief"

from Webster's Dictionary second edition

But then I say to myself: "Don't I question my beliefs—don't I doubt on occasion?" Some would argue such self-examination is healthy while others would claim that this kind of faith is "weak". There is that famous statement in the New Testament which at least some of you have heard or read which will crop up later: "help me with my un-belief". There is also an award winning play entitled "Doubt" the author's preface to the written version of which is worth your pondering.

Faith brings me to another topic related to our subject material in a polemic sense; that topic is Secularism, to which we will devote a brief bit of attention. Secularism is a newly sculpted concept in ideological creation with the formulization --- separation of church and state, where there is no co-mingling of the "state" with "religion"; i.e. where the state is increasingly identified with the term "secular". Secularists fear the imposition of religious "beliefs" upon the "public square" (government), with good reason from historical evidence. Some cynics counter that secularist's fear religion because it undermines their choice of lifestyle. The more adamant secular voices argue that politics (e.g. the state) should be guided by human intellect alone. But the belief that the secular state should be imposed exclusively on intellect because of the superiority of human reason, requires a high level of faith itself, and rebuttal can again be based on historical evidence. The susceptibility of secularism to immoral totalitarianism with rampant in-humanity is well documented by Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism excesses. Although very relevant, as mentioned previously, the extension of interlace concepts to governance cannot be supported in this course. Those wishing to engage in this aspect can start with Wikipedia and a number of recent books like "Public Faith". While I disagree with conclusions of that particular book, I do continence, to a limited extent, the thesis that plurality is superior to totalitarianism for "the common good". Without going to much further astray and for what it is worth, my stand is that benevolence is required in any form of governance to achieve the "common good" and it is this aspect of human governance, benevolence, which is hard to come by.

"Before beginning the overview of scripture" Anton intoned, "An important element common to religion, spirituality and myth must be acknowledged." He beckoned to the "Power Point" screen which now showed:

"Prayer is an immense, enduring connective thread

in human history, in human life and in it's destiny.

A thread that connects to the unknowable

in our midst."

based on a passage from the introduction to: In Silence

by Spato, D.

I find it interesting that, as the slide illustrates, in our modern terminology it is still useful in forming metaphors, to employ words from ancient technology like "embroidery", "tapestry", "weaving" and, going back to the beginning, however far back that is, "thread". This works because, despite thousands of intervening years, they describe contemporary circumstances. Certainly Adam, of Biblical accounts, in covering up his private parts would have had to join the leaves together and hold them in place somehow. I will leave the leaves with a question for your fertile imaginations: did Eve contribute her handiwork by embroidering on the fig leaves? [laughter]

Putting humor aside let me note that prayer has not been considered in my previous course material even though it is commonly found in the interweaving of mankind's thinking fabric, whether it is formally, as in religion, privately, as in spirituality, or invoked in mythology. That is because, even though I teach on religion, I haven't been a prayer kind of guy and it is not really a subject I cared to talk about here in a lecture setting or even at home. Now with my new found outlook on prayer, I've done some probing in that arena, and as a consequence I encourage each of you to do some probing of your own. That comment is based on my own experience of late.

Prayer is the subject of many books containing myriad views, views that can be contentious, and because of these factors, prayer was a course diversion I had not entertained. Although prayer is not a subject that is amenable to analysis per se, the concept will come up and be considered as we go along. Today, uncharacteristically for me, we will consider some of the formal characteristics of prayer other "experts" have observed. You will be responsible for this material so listen up.

The first observable feature is the readily apparent one; the two ways of praying...public and private. A real good authority on prayer, in my opinion, was Jesus who explicitly commended praying in private. Others claim he implicitly sanctioned the public form. In contrast, another authority, Mohammed, endorsed public praying, commanding ritualistic praying five times a day with rote declarations and had nothing to say about private prayer. Other religions endorse or even command more extensive prayer rituals especially in a monastic setting. Within these two ways, private and public, there are broad spectrums of prayer conduct; these may include: posture, mode, and accessories. Of course, only in the public arena can these be regulated by some kind of authority. Obviously in private, such regulation cannot be achieved, even by civil authorities trying to suppress or eliminate religious expression altogether. In the public domain these expressions vary widely, religion to religion and culture to culture. Culture to culture, it's possible to even find expressions of worship/prayer which vary between good and evil (based on "Western" Moral standards) under the cloak of religion.

In "moral" public prayer, religious authorities can command certain postures from prostrate to standing; others may merely expect it. In the same vein, accessories vary from none to elaborate prayer wheels, manner of dress, or costumes. Mode may vary from silence to the recitation of repeated chants that may last for extended periods of time. Mode can include dancing, sometimes in "self-induced exuberance". Praying in silence...a mode promoted by many from ancient times to contemporary ('contemporary'...the equivalent I hope, in our ever changing connotations of language, to 'later post-modern' [laughter]). Silence is evoked routinely by ministers (and even non-ministers) and enjoined upon those gathered; even as silence in our lives becomes rarer and more difficult to detect (even as we attempt to pray in silence). I recommend you read the book "In Silence" by Spoto, shown on a previous slide. It is not required reading. Silent prayer is advocated, it seems, by Spoto, out of the many modes, to be the preferred mode. He illustrates, with paradox, some intriguing thoughts by others over the centuries. For example he quotes Elijah of the Bible as saying...the "sheer sound of silence". These and the countless metaphors, contradictory in many ways, are typical in the language of religions.

In researching the New Testament, I have found that Jesus had nothing to say about any of that...only "worship in truth and spirit"; which I believe can be extended to private prayer (here I take liberty to associate worship with prayer). But even in this case, the Bible does not record what, if anything, Jesus said in concrete terms about what he meant by the words "truth" and "spirit"; nor did he expound on the content of his private prayer. Need I say we are not about to spend any more time to speculate on these matters of truth, spirit, and content...not today anyway. Each of you may have your own ideas, or thoughts, or feelings about prayer. Whether or not they are found to agree with someone else's, I believe is not important. I conclude with my own conviction:....nothing of importance matters if prayer is conducted as the one who knew best indicated..."worship God in truth and spirit" (and in secret). And that combination of sayings by Jesus brings me to the last topic in today's lecture: "Spiritual Not Religious".

A popular response to questions on religious belief is: "I'm spiritual but not religious". Is it a catch phrase of our time or does it have lasting moral significance? Fifty years ago this was not the response, especially in the Western cultures; rather it was in vogue to say something to the effect: "I'm a Christian, I go to church, and I pray regularly". Most people who said that lived it or tried to—it had moral significance. I suppose the older phrase could be restated as: 'I'm religious and spiritual'. It is interesting that the older phrase does not have a converse while the catch phrase does have a converse: "I'm religious not spiritual". Now I think it will be difficult to find people claiming this converse; and the concept may not exist as a recognizable separate belief system. Perhaps the closest one may approach such a converse concept is with those strict adherents to evolutionist theory or, for example, Marxism, which rejects spirituality. However, most will claim strict Darwinian Evolution, a political system, or a concept such as secularism is not a religion for precisely this very reason. In their opinion these are a belief systems or "world views". However, if faith is part of being religious, then these "non-religious" folks could be wrong in their claim because their belief system or world view is quite religious in terms of faith required. In the decades I've been exposed to these matters, I personally have never encountered, heard, or read of anyone religious espousing the contrary view—that is, of being religious but having no spiritual connection. Such a thought-question never dawned on me until I commenced contemplating for today's lecture....but all this is but intellectual meandering....to get you students thinking....just what do you think about religious and spiritual matters. Because, when one delves more deeply into human spiritual, religious, and mythological thought processes, then the thinking waters become murky indeed.

For many who use the expression 'spiritual not religious', the word religion is used in a negative sense, especially when inferring 'organized religion'. (Is there such a thing as disorganized religion? [laughter]) Rather obviously, the exponents of the catch phase seem to consider "religious" as having nothing to do with being spiritual. I think most religious people would reject this thought as being totally inaccurate. On the other hand there exist the "non-most", who, though appearing religious, are concerned mostly with material matters. It is such "hypocrites" that the spiritual wish to separate themselves from. But then the "exclusively spiritual" also seem to exclude attendance at formal religious activities associated with "religion" as if it is corrupted or corrupting. There may be some truth to their observation. But then, those who consider themselves to be "truly spiritual" may be deceived by mythological concepts.

More to the point: what do people mean when they say they are spiritual given the difficulty in finding a common concrete meaning? Your assignment, to be turned in before semester end, is: if someone would say to you "You say you are spiritual; what do you mean by that"; give your answer in fifty words or less but more than twenty-five.

Finally, to make my position as the professor of this class in religious studies clear, I consider myself to be "spiritually inclined" but uncertain as to "religion" or religious dogma; notwithstanding the fact I can't be descriptively specific, not about spirituality anyway. But at least, I can claim I no longer belong to or have official membership in any aspect of "organized religion". Is this, my declaration, a statement of impartiality (which is impossible to prove) or a modern day badge of honor? I would like to think it is the former; for me at least, but then again, I could be in with the hypocrite crowd. Whatever the case may be, I look forward to what you people have to say about spirituality...who knows, perhaps I can identify with at least one of the views.

That's it for today but don't get up yet! There is yet another assignment...mandatory, graded assignment this time. Anton pointed to a new slide.

Jesus

Mohammed

Confucius

Budda

Smith (Mormonism)

"These are the individuals known to have been responsible for most of the major religions we will be considering. Several of the major religions have no known founders but will be considered anyway, namely Hinduism and Shintoism. Each of you is to submit a short sketch on the founding personage for their Scripture corresponding to the first letter of your last name. For instance, if your last name is Calhoun with a letter "C" you would select Confucius and write a short dissertation on that scripture source. If your name were Renault, Smith would be the choice. I'm hoping an even distribution can be worked out in your next workshop. The longer the dissertation the better chance there is for a good grade. However nothing more than about two hundred words is desired and much longer than this will lead to grade degradation. Nonetheless, grades will be based on quality not quantity since what is known about these people is, in itself, variable in quantity. I promise to be lenient since time is not excessive, but I want to get this accomplished early since scripture source is an important aspect of our considerations to follow. Is this assignment clear to everyone? Good! They will be due in your last workshop before the next lecture which, because of the Holidays, is two weeks off. In our next lecture we will look at the prominent features of the "other ways to the mountain top".

Anton stepped away from the podium....there was no applause. As he left the small stage his glance took in the expressionless face of the acting philosophy department head, Beverly Small who was standing in the back auditorium corner.

### 3. Sparkling Snow-Part Two

" **Anton** dear I sense you are unhappy. Your class session did not go well? And you came home late so as not to tell me about it? I was sound asleep when you came home and barged through the front door noisily, and that woke me up. Did you do that on purpose?"

"No!" [extended silence]

"Still don't want to explain?"

"No!" [silence]

Finally Anton confessed: "I was out drinking with the boys...something I told you I wouldn't do anymore...I know you know or guessed it...let's not play around."

"Okay!"

"I don't think they were being 'yes men with me' Anton continued after a bit, my buddies that is....we're not meeting anymore since it got out of hand....not with me anyway. The worst part of the night is they agreed with my assessment."

"Have I heard this assessment before?" Marge broke in

"Yeahh, Yeahh, from your point of view too many times I suppose."

"Well saying it out loud to me may do you some good now that you are more sober. At least you came down fo..."Marge changed the subject in mid-stride Anton dear why don't you first eat the lovely breakfast your wife has prepared. This will give me some time to think of a way to escape—ha, ha, ha!"

Anton couldn't help but notice the laugh was forced. Not deterred in the least, given that loop-hole invitation, Anton began his litany between bites of the delicious Denver omelet and rye toast. Despite her many faults that Anton could imagine, he had to admire her ability as a cook.

"It's the same old thing getting worse...she wants me out...that's all there is to it...it's been downhill since I wasn't given the chair. Dad was right....'if you don't get it you're a gonners'"

"Your father didn't say that...I never heard him say anything like that...he always encouraged you."

"Well I bet he thought it...he passed on shortly after..."

"That was a coincidence! Now eat your breakfast. How many times have we been over this? It gets us nowhere. How can I get you to think positively?"

"I haven't had the guts to tell you about last week."

"Tell me." The slight quiver in her voice betrayed her inner desire not to know.

"Bev called me into her office Friday last week. I think she had been pounced on by Chancellor Bob the way she laid into me. Bob has a way of making life unpleasant—never directly and it rubbed off.... two professors in Health Science voluntarily gave up their tenures you remember, and rumor has it harassment was responsible. I'm not sure what really happened to them...they were younger than me so it's not clear."

An unmistakable look of fear crept into Marge's eyes. Totally dependent upon Anton for her existence, she had neither resources nor a desire to acquire them in order to back up her husband, or even to make it on her own. The last two years had increasingly showed her the vulnerability of her position. Her inability to have a measurable affect on her husband's melancholic reaction to this adverse situation was beginning to take its toll on her own mental outlook, possibly even her health.

Anton rambled on having ravished the omelet toast and orange juice in his anxiety. "She's pressuring me to publish something—anything that will attract students. That's Bob talking...he said that was why I wasn't 'awarded the chair' remember"

"Yeah, Okay, Yeah."

"I'm not certain she's even a Christian...see things in her office now that suggest Buddhism."

"Wow!"

"Yeahhh! And she wants me to be 'eclectic'...and take on more than six lectures a semester and get involved in the workshops. It's all about getting more students and lowering costs. Can't blame them for that I suppose but its going to mean I make big changes if I am to survive..."

At this point Marge asked an oft repeated question to give the situation relief and to give her time to think of an encouraging response. "You have just a short time to hang on dear....what is it again?"

"You know damn well what it is...I could give it to you in minutes if you cared."

Anton got up from the table, pushing Marge back some as he did. Marge had come behind him to ruffle his hair... something he said he didn't like but she knew he loved...one of the many games they played to hide behind. While Anton had stood up abruptly, he now uncharacteristically turned to a surprised Marge and embraced his partner....mumbled: "not to worry....I'm going to work things out". Overcome with emotion at this unexpected display of affection, Marge briefly broke down. Then, regaining her composure, somewhat haltingly, she half whispered "I love you Andy! I know you can get us through this". "Andy" was her term of endearment and Anton was surprised to hear that word; suddenly realizing it had been occurring less frequently of late.

Releasing Marge, but still holding her arms, Anton said with unusual conviction: "It will take some changes for both of us. I'm changing my teaching style and content to try to get on the better side of Miss Beverly if there is one. Yesterday's session seemed to go better than I expected...no one threw rotten eggs or booed. It was kind of a spontaneous rambling off the cuff sort of thing. I'm going to go beyond the syllabus. You know I was thinking maybe we, and I mean you, could invite Bob and Betty over for dinner, maybe for Thanksgiving even. I don't think Bob's change in philosophy has made him very popular with the faculty, and so they may be inclined to accept."

"How about writing?" Marge cut in to her instant regret.

"Oww, that hurts Marg...you know that's my nemesis, but then I know you are right...I've got to do it. Where's the niche...everyone has written so much on everything I know about. I'm playing a round of golf with Clive later today...I'm gonna try to have a conversation with him afterwards over a beer or two and maybe he can suggest something. Clive is creative in his own way...we haven't socialized after a game in quite a while...oh...and I'll be careful."

"I'm surprised the links are open" Marge said, wiping her eyes with tissue.

"Yeahh, probably the last chance."

"I don't know about Bob and Betty....she and I don't, you know, hit it off, nothing in common....that sort of thing..."

Anton cut her short. "I know, I know it's hard; if it wasn't I would do it; but I feel your offer can't but help the situation and if they accept who knows what can happen? Besides you are the best cook in town. Everyone says so...I'd be surprised if they turn you down. Call Betty...feel the situation out if you can. And thanks for the breakfast, it was right good."

"Thanks dear. When would be a good time?"

"We don't have any plans that I can think of and I don't have any at the moment so it's up to you...and them."

"What about Bev? Her too?" asked Marge as a dawning realization of their social isolation came upon her.

"I don't think it would be wise for us to ask her to join us," Anton responded. "Rumor mill has it she is on her way out!"

And so the morning went.

***

Clive, Doty, and friends

Mostly Anton had his set of friends and Marge had her set. However, they did share friendship with one couple, a long-time acquaintance of Anton's; Clive and his wife Dorothy. Marge got along famously with "Doty" because of their shared love of cooking and similar backgrounds. Anton's old friend, Clive, Sylvester Clive Roberts that is, was a one time college roommate of Anton's, and with whom he had started out in the same discipline but in their second year went their separate ways. Anton went into the Arts and Clive remained in Finance, such as it was back then. Years later, as chance would have it; they had wound up within driving distance of each other and had resumed their friendship, although strained at times because Clive was a much better golfer. And Clive was also much, much better off financially; since Clive, a born leader with charisma was a brilliant financial consultant as well. He had it all; at least from Anton's perspective. The glue for their couple friendship was now really found principally in their wives. There was, however one other important binding factor—religion; a dormant flower like factor which was now about to blossom.

***

Later that week, Anton asked Marge if she thought having Clive and wife over for a dinner might be a good idea. Her response was not what Anton had in mind.

"You didn't tell me what went on with Clive...when was that...last Tuesday?"

"You must be getting old Marg...it might have been Wednesday...just kidding; no you are right, it was Tuesday. Remember it's on Monday I lecture"

"I was kidding too dear." The way the word 'dear' was said told Anton that Marge was not happy with his secretiveness and certainly not with his inept wisecrack about "old".

"Sorry Marg...I meant to talk it over with you, really I did."

"Yeah sure...it would be the first time." [silence]

"I am really sorry Marg...I want to do a better job of communicating.....we need to pull together on this"

"I haven't called Betty yet." Marge cut in. (An admission of co-guilt)

"Want me to?" Anton asked.

"No!"

After a short period of silence Anton continued: "Anyway, I can't say a lot of inspiration transpired. Clive is doing very well you know and is expanding his horizons, but he certainly isn't encouraging me to leave the teaching profession and he didn't know what to say about the writing business...there is no place for me in his organization. He agrees being more eclectic in my lectures to mollify the superiors is a good stop-gap approach. I'm amazed how Clive is becoming more religiously minded and less materialistic, even as he is succeeding financially. His talking about the Lord...prayer... and....and..., well it kinda puts me to shame."

"You're kidding."

"Yeahhh, No. I mean, yeahhh, no kidding. While he apologized for not seeing a place for me as he put it 'that would do me good' which I interpret as would be satisfying in the long run; he left the impression that he would be the life net for us if worse came to worse. If nothing else I should have told you that much right away to relieve your mind...I can tell you're worried about our future."

"Ummm!" Marge murmured but with emphasis.

"Just don't get too complacent on me...it's my interpretation...nothing substantial......we're still on our own. You know I sense that Clive and his whole family are very appreciative of your intervention in their failing marriage. This isn't the first time either...my brother...you were instrumental..." Anton became slightly over-come even after all the years because of the recalled memory.

Marge broke in: "I think having them over is a good idea; I'll call Doty as well as Betty but please let's not get into the marriage thing as a potential business opportunity...even if I had some talent there, I don't want to do it professionally...I've told you before I don't want to go through all the schooling for one thing...I'm intellectually challenged"

"Oh Marg you are not, that's about as lame as my excuses for not writing; but I well understand, and besides there is something to be said for sincere amateurism in that arena."

"Andy your hitting the men from the other side at the same time was invaluable. I think we are a good team in helping others in their intimate relationships. I wish I was as effective with my husband." The look that came over Anton's face made Marge instantly regret. She rushed over to rub his head.

"Oh Anton I'm so sorry; I shouldn't have said that."

"Don't do that!"

Marge immediately stopped the gentle message and started to leave.

"No, No, not the massage...don't call me Anton."

Marge teared up instantly.

And so the day went.

***

Later that week

"It's me, I'm home Marg." Anton half shouted as he was greeted with some warm soothing smells emanating from the kitchen.

"Hi Honey. C'mon here!"

Greeted with a warm embrace and a kiss once he pushed his way through the abbreviated double doors to the kitchen, Anton couldn't help but smile broadly with the warm feeling welling up from within. Hugging her in return he gave a slight rubbing with his lips on her arched neck which made Marge shiver in reflex. He liked that, she liked it. Anton stepped back to admire his wife. "Gosh you look so pretty" Anton said in simple sincere appreciation. Marge had purchased a new trendy outfit over which she now wore a complementary bib and apron...very cute and sexy. A new wardrobe was becoming necessary as Marge slimmed down after several months of jogging with two friends similarly bent on self-improvement. She also found exercise helped ease the new waves of heightened anxiety.

Marge did a little curtsey in response and straitening up, smiled with a whispered thank you. "And I have news...Bob and Betty are coming over for Thanksgiving."

"That's swell!" Anton rejoined..."perfect."

"And Clive and Doty too," Marge announced proudly.

"Even more perfect. Now I'm truly proud of you!" Holding her by the waist, Anton swept Marge off her feet.

"Bob and Betty are coming even though I mentioned that you had an ulterior motive for the invite."

"You mentioned I had a motive?!!" Anton put Marge right back down in surprise.

"Yup I did...I figured they would suspect something was up anyway. We haven't been socially engaged since you joined the faculty. How many times have we been invited to their parties? [silence]. Anyway it seemed to work and I think it will make it easier for you to be up front with Bob".

"Yeahhh, I agree with you there...boy, that was bold Marg...I'm proud of you dear...I might be falling in love with you all over again!" Anton said with a big grin.

"Et Tu Brute!" Marge followed with a mock punch to Anton's middle. "You may have to get some new belts, and pants to go with them...those exercise classes are doing you some good Andy."

"Thank you dearest; that and less beering. And I have some news for you too"

Anton's expression made it clear to Marge that it couldn't be bad. "I'll tell you after dinner;...something smells awfully good and I am a hungry brute." They both laughed.

"Beef stroganoff my dear," Marge half sang while struggling for a clever rhyme but failed.

"I'll get some wine to go with it." And he disappeared down the stairs to the basement.

Later, relaxing on the family room sofa in sheer contentment after a great meal, Marg looked up at Anton as she lay cradled in his lap. "O.K. dear now tell all before you drift off."

"This afternoon I took off early after giving Sally a lame excuse. [Sally a secretary serving the professors in the department]. I met with Clive, several of his buddies, and Winton."

"Winton, your old friend from..."

"Yeah that Winton," Anton cut her off. "He's in town at some science fair thing I didn't know about. Anyway, he called me up yesterday morning out of the blue...we have fallen out of touch over the years you know..."

"Ummm" Marge said with closed lips and eyes. It was almost a guttural purr.

"We had a long conversation, for me anyway... he is, according to him, a big operator in multimedia and talks a good success story that I thought Clive might latch onto. And this afternoon Clive and his friends did, I think. But it's the serendipity of it all that caught me and that's what I really want to tell you about. Somehow the conversation got onto Jesus, probably something I said, and either Clive or Winton said something about not hearing much anymore of the "what would Jesus do" crowd. And I said something about what would Jesus say if he were to be here now interacting with the world's mess; and that led to more brain storming. Then it struck me: "Why not do a play with that motif?" I said. "They all know about my rebellious stand on ecclesiastical matters which has been stewing in my mind more than they know. I fear I would be terminated if I would write and publish my true sentiments. We kicked it around a bit and in the end agreed I should pursue the idea. Winton and I are getting together tomorrow afternoon before he leaves. He thinks he may have some concepts that would be helpful in the pursuit of the idea but wanted to think it over."

"Ummmm...wow!"

And so the evening went.

### 4. The Scriptures

**Anton** strode more confidently into the lecture hall because he had spent a great deal of time working on his lecture. It had needed a lot of work; being a novel format for him with some fresh subject material. He was also encouraged by new faces in the somewhat larger gathering.

"In today's lecture the world's dominant scriptures are going to be briefly examined for major features. Now the study of scripture is pretty much an academic exercise. For one thing, the exclusively "spiritual" may claim to have no scripture to speak of. And, as explained in the first lecture, most religiously minded people (the laity) pretty well ignore their source scripture as any overview of the world's religions will testify. Professional religious academicians are mostly the only ones left. But 'forensic' analysis or criticism of scripture needs to be done; if for no other reason than for the sake of you, academic students that you are. It is interesting to note, that of all the scriptures, it is the Bible, especially the New Testament, that has received the most intense critical review by far and by all manner of people....one has to wonder why this is the case.

To keep the course manageable in scope, only the dominant scriptures will be considered, taken in descending order of estimated number of adherents. Except for the New Testament, our summary analysis is based on the description of relevant scriptures by others. . In the following slides, the parenthetical expression adjacent to the heading, e.g. "BIBLE", states the associated major religion and then those chiefly responsible for its origination. Hopefully this will make clearer the lectures to follow. There will be handouts of these slides at the end of this period and you will be responsible to know their content. For whatever reasons, the University has waived the prerequisite requirements for this course, so, for that reason, we will have this brief summarization of basic religious beliefs to bring everyone up to speed....and, of course, it never hurts to review, for those of you who have taken the formerly pre-requisite material." Pointing to the presentation screen Anton said: "These are the scriptures to be considered and their founders that you are to write about."

Anton reads the next slides out loud:

BIBLE(Christianity) [Jesus}

KORAN (Islam-Muslim) [Mohammed]

TAO TE CHING (Taoism) [Lao-tzu]

LUN YU (Confucianism) [Confucius]

VEDAS (Hinduism) [no known individual]

TIPITAKA (Buddhism) [Buddha]

(Shinto) [no known scriptural source or individual]

After reading the screen's content, Anton continued reading next slide

About one-third of the world's population claims a religious belief

tied to the Bible. Somewhere between one and one-half billion of these

are of the Catholic faith. This religion has its own version of the Bible which

contains extra "books" called the Apocrypha. Most of the remainder of

Christianity is composed of the Protestant faith which rejects then Apocrypha.

Supposedly, these various forms of the Bible are the most published literature,

let alone scripture, in the world.

"Although the screen doesn't show it, the Bible is divided into two major sections commonly called the Old Testament, the larger of the two, and New Testament; the division roughly corresponding to the entrance of Jesus into the religious arena. World-wide, the emphasis is on the New Testament and it will be so in this course as well. The Bible, as a whole, is estimated to have been written over a period of nearly two thousand years. Many analysts claim there were up to forty different authors of the Bible's "books". Some of the better identified authors of the New Testament we will consider in detail in later lectures. Many Biblical authorities point out more accurate appellations for the two divisions are: "The Hebrew/Aramaic Testament" and the "Greek Testament"; the languages in which the surviving manuscripts are written. The former refers to the Old Testament and the latter to the New Testament. On the other hand, the Greek texts did follow the Hebrew/Aramaic texts chronologically. Let's briefly consider the Old Testament first.

A small percentage of Bible adherents are of the Orthodox Jewish faith, which holds only to the Old Testament portion of the Bible and rejects the New Testament, basically because they do not accept Jesus as the promised "messiah". There is a significant percentage of Jews who reject Orthodoxy and are Christian believers. I hasten to add that in many ways, it is difficult to categorize what actually constitutes a Jew and is perhaps mysterious. There is another mystery about Jews: the observable fact that an insignificant fraction of the world's population, the Jew, has influenced the belief system of over half the world's population; what factors brought this about? Added to this is yet another mystery; why out of the countless multitudes of people who have attempted to start their own religions or have even proclaimed themselves to be gods, have only such a few religions become dominant? Unfortunately, for those students expecting a miracle answer from me, no answer is forthcoming; especially concerning the exceptional Jewish involvement. However, anyone wishing to submit a credible explanation in a short paper will receive extra credit [light applause and some laughter]. The politics of how divisions in religions came about, such as the many divisions within Christianity, will not be considered in this course. Let us now tackle some of the Old Testament relevant details."

The Old Testament is noteworthy in the broad spectrum of this course's

subject material. It not only provides the history of the Jews, tracing it back to

the creation account (which many contend is mythological as are such

accounts in other religions), but their extensive religious belief development as well.

Much of the history narrative has been verified by archeological digs and finds

from surrounding cultures. The Old Testament also contains numerical data on

population counts, the development of leadership and interaction with

surrounding nations including both victory and defeat.

Anton continued after reading the slide out loud: "Interestingly enough, the Old Testament, strictly speaking, is not a Christian document, although it is embraced by the Christian church because of its lightly veiled inferences to the coming messiah, Jesus. An overarching theme of the Old Testament is the religious expression of the Jews both in declarations supposedly coming directly from God, who the Jews claimed (later on), rather uniquely, to be a monotheistic deity (as do Muslims). These declarations, viewed as divine laws, whether inspired or not, were uttered by people labeled prophets, who in many instances did prophesy future events. The prophesies of Isaiah and Daniel are particularly noteworthy. Much of these prophesies have to deal with the foretelling of the coming messiah. Analysts claim there are more than thirty such prophesies later fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus. Prophesies, other than those dealing with the messiah, are also found and can be (with a little stretching in some cases) verified historically. The prophesy dealing with the Babylonian emperor, Cyrus, is a notable example. This verifiable supernatural ability to foresee the future is a unique feature of the Bible and is not duplicated in other scripture. Such metaphysical abilities make more credible the well-known miracle stories that are found in the Old Testament. For example, Jonah and the large fish, Daniel in the lion's den, the crossing of the Red Sea, and others; but those scientifically inclined dismiss miracle stories as mythological. Eastern cultures and those less sophisticated cultures south of the equator are more receptive to miracle stories as are those inclined to being superstitious.

I want to point out that, in the English language, the word prophet has two definitions. First, a prophet is defined as "one who utters divinely inspired revelations". What this means in more concrete terms is beyond understanding, to my mind at least. The second definition is "one who foretells future events". Now that I can understand. It is interesting that the second definition makes no mention of the foretelling being a "divinely inspired" event. We will dig into this "divinely inspired" concept in a subsequent lecture.

Another important concept which cannot be ignored in analysis of scripture is "canonicity". This is the process by which people in authority include certain pertinent writings vying for authorization, and exclude others. For example, in about 200AD the Jewish authorities "closed" their version of the Old Testament, including certain "books" (writings) and excluding others. In this period the first books of ancient Jewish scripture were given special authority and designated with a now popular title "Torah"; a convenient short-hand as it were, useful for non-Jews as well. The "canonistic" process is always controversial and not all religions seem to apply this principle in depth to their scripture, if at all. But the New Testament portion of the Bible, to be considered next, has been considerably impacted by "canonicity" perhaps more than any other scripture. Before leaving the Old Testament subject material, I would like to dwell briefly on a little considered matter by the non-scholar---the name of God.

The Old Testament text makes a big deal about the name of God giving many variations and incorporating it into people's given names and so forth. In stark contrast, one finds in the New Testament that Jesus called God his father but did not give God a personal pronoun...that is a name like my name, Anton. Does this omission by Jesus imply that God is not a person to which a "personal" name can be attached? Some would answer yes to that question; others seem to be compelled to give God a personal name as did the Jews of old. Consider the fact that the ancient Jews came to the superstition that to voice or write their personal name for God was sacrilegious. Thus their name for God has become lost except for the vowel-less four letter tetragrammaton (a Greek based word for YHWH in English characters); a symbolism which has come down to us, through much mutation, as Jehovah or Yahovah, or even Yahweh. Their superstition was so profound that they even diminished the importance of the first character (aleph) in their alphabet; both in writing and phonetically. There has been much research done on just this one aspect of Biblical lore, which research results must lie outside the scope of today's lecture. I just wish to point out what seems to be a common phonetic characteristic—the "aahh" sound. I must note however that the New Testament Greek text is an exception to this characteristic. In the Greek language, the word for god is "theos"; and therefore, exceptionally different phonetically. It is yet a further but interesting aside that the Greek divine "theos" has been incorporated into such words as theology; and even into purely secular non-divine activities in words like theory as in scientific theory. If this etymological evolution is correct, then I find it ironic that most scientists have substituted a god-less science theos for the spiritual one.

With that aside, consider the phonetic coincidence of the "aahh" sound in words like alleluia (which means Praise God), Jehovah, or Yahovah, or even Yahweh. And there are more examples like the "aahh" sound in the Arabic god word Allah. Now most think Jesus spoke in his native tongue, Aramaic. Although the exact Aramaic of Jesus' day has been lost, a reconstruction exists today which yields "alaha" for the god-word in Aramaic (note the similarity to the Arabic)(2). The aahh sound is even in our Anglo-Saxon derived name "Gawd", as it is sometimes spelled to reflect the actual phonetic sound. Need I point out the common experience of crowds of human gathered to watch the awesome display of July fourth fireworks to which the crowd responds "ahhh" to the pyrotechnic display? Is it coincidence that we have ahhh, awe, awed, ah, in our vocabulary; and the superstitious diminution of the Jewish aahh (aleph) sound in their vocabulary? Did the ancients, prior to the flood when the gift of vocalizing first evolved, greet the rising morning sun with awe and thankful "aahh" for having survived another night in dangerous darkness?

So much for all that, now it's on to the New Testament."

The New Testament is much more limited in scope when compared to

the Old Testament (OT). Excluding those "books" which have the

"Apostle" Paul as the person of interest, the New Testament (NT) is

focused mainly on the ministry of Jesus and even Jesus is the subject

of much of Paul's writing. Jesus excelled in the ability to foresee

future events and some have already been verified in secular historical

accounts. The most outstanding being the destruction of Herod's temple

in 70AD almost 40 years after Jesus' death. This verification of

prophetic ability makes the NT accounts of Jesus' other "miracle" feats

more credible and even lends credence to the OT miracle stories.

Anton read the slide out loud to the class and then added: "As the slide states, The New Testament is much more limited in scope compared to the Old Testament. Excluding those 'books' having the 'apostle' Paul as the dominant person or writer, the New Testament is focused only on the ministry of Jesus and even he is the subject of much of Paul's writings. Jesus excelled in the ability to foresee the future and some have already been verified in secular-historical writing...the most outstanding example being the destruction of Herod's temple in 70AD. Again, this verified prophetic ability makes the New Testament accounts of Jesus' other 'miraculous' feats more credible as was the case for miracles in the Old Testament." Anton then continued: "An in-depth analysis of the New Testament is deferred to later lectures when Jesus' ministry will be extensively covered. However, I want to emphasize that the canonicity issue arose early on as the Christian religion developed and was controversial for hundreds of years until being settled by decree. Fairly recent 'finds' in Egypt have served to revive the controversy among scholars. That is all I wish to say about the New Testament at this time, so it is on to the other religions." The next slide shows the other religions we will consider. First is the scripture source (if there is one) followed by the religion's name and then the name of the founder of the religion (if there is one) .

QURAN (Islam-Muslim) [Mohammed]

TAO TECHING (Taoism) [Lao tzu]

LUN YU (Confucianism) [Confucius]

VEDAS (Hinduism) [no known individual]

TIPITAKA (Buddhism) [Buddha]

(Shinto) [no known source scripture or individual founder]

BOOK OF MORMON (Mormonism) [Joseph Smith]

"Islam, with its foundational scripture the Quran, is the next most popular religion after Christianity with between one-fourth and one-fifth of the world's population; depending upon whose statistics one chooses to accept. That is about the same as Catholicism but Islam is growing rapidly whereas the latter is not. Its scriptural basis was formed early in the seventh century by, (reportedly), mostly relatives and friends of the founder, Mohammed, some years after his death. The circumstances surrounding the writing of the Quran (also spelled Koran) are problematic. There is a strongly held Islamic tradition that Mohammed dictated the contents of the Koran to scribes. It is also claimed that Mohammed himself was illiterate and furthermore his "sayings" (attributed by him to the angel Gabriel) were reportedly written down by close associates on objects like bone, wood, and possibly parchment because other material was not available in the desert. It is not clear if these close associates were the scribes; there is some chronological confusion as to how the writing was done. According to the second tradition, the writings were initially dispersed but, it is said, they were later collected and put into writing under the authority of subsequent "caliphs". This is strange, first of all, because these traditions do not make known on what material the original complete version of the Koran was written; even though this took place just a few years after Mohammed's death. Besides that, those Diaspora Jews and Christian tribes located in that part of Arabia must certainly have brought with them copies of the Hebrew Scriptures on papyrus scrolls, if not codices. And certainly those Arabs trading with surrounding cultures would have been aware of the use of papyrus and other more suitable material that had been going on for centuries in those other cultures. Moreover Arabic script was well developed at that time. Could the writing on bone etc. be merely mythological, part of the mythic traditions developed by devout Muslims that have evolved over time? At any rate, however the Koran scripture originated, there is no doubt that its inception was considerably influenced by Jewish texts, especially that portion of the Old Testament that has come to be known as the Torah. Over a dozen prominent characters from the Old Testament are mentioned in the Koran, some repeatedly. Jesus and a few other New Testament characters are also mentioned. Although there are no direct quotations from the Bible, the parallels with it are hard to dismiss.

The Koran is in agreement with Judaism that Jesus was an ordinary human but one with prophetic abilities. However, it makes the claim that Mohammed was a greater prophet than Jesus and that he, Mohammed, would be "sealed" (i.e. the last inspired prophet). However, there are two factors to consider. First, Mohammed made no prophetic utterances about future events while Jesus did. (Refer back to my previous comments.) Second, the life of Edgar Cayce would seem to challenge the Koran's claim of Mohammed being the last or "sealed" prophet; a claim made both by Mohammed himself and within the Koran itself. These comments of mine bring into question f what constitutes the "inspiration" these individuals engaged in because, at least superficially, the claimed inspiration source appears to be different for each of the three named individuals.

The Koran details what is expected in way of beliefs and observances; yet by far the most important is to be submissive (Islam) to the will of Allah (God) and to his prophet (Mohammed). Among the beliefs and observances in general, the more noteworthy are the "noble" attributes--- the concern for widows, and orphans for example which, could be argued, arise from Torah philosophies. Charity is viewed as an obligation like tithing in Judaism. From its inception, the Koran has provided secular authority leading to a merging of civil and religious thinking as did the Jewish. Also, from the time of its origination, the Koran has implicitly condoned conquest and plunders in the name of Allah; again in parallel with the Old Testament accounts describing Jewish conquests following the escape of the Jews from Egypt.

Much of the Muslim mainstream "culture" is formed beyond the Koran, which remains, however, the core building block. The main scriptural additions are found in the somewhat overlapping scripture, the "Hadith" and the "Sunnah". The Hadith encompasses mostly the teachings of Mohammed which are not found in the Koran and which were initially conveyed orally. The Sunnah, the more important of the two, encompasses mostly the exemplary aspects of Mohammed's life. How the Sunnah and the Hadith came into existence is even more enigmatic than the Koran. The two seem to be co-dependent as far as developmental authority goes and they were finally canonized hundreds of years after Mohammed's death. As was the case in Christianity, "the less scrupulous" engaged in distortion and fabrication to benefit their own "self-interests". After Islam had made its initial conquests, devoted Muslim scholars methodically evaluated millions of such scriptural texts for authenticity. Much of the Hadith and Sunnah developed from texts vying for this scholarly acceptance. The methods and criteria employed I leave to your research, but to my mind it seems to have been very subjective.

To quote a modern Muslim writer on these texts, Ram Swarup: "Muslim theologians make no distinction between the Koran and the Hadis. To them, both are works of revelation or inspiration. The quality and degree of the revelation in both works is the same; only the mode of expression is different. To them (the theologians), the Hadis is the Koran in action, revelation made concrete in the life of the Prophet (Mohammed). In the Koran, Allah speaks through Muhammad; in the Sunnah, He (Allah) acts through him. Thus, Muhammad's life is a visible expression of Allah's utterances in the Koran. God provides the divine principle, Muhammad the living pattern." He goes on to say that the Koran and Hadis are "interchangeable". More importantly, he asserts that the Sunnah "is the most important single source of Islamic laws, precepts, and practices". Further he states: "the Koran is hadis mutwatir, which is the Tradition considered authentic and genuine from the beginning". So what is the Koran?...Supreme or subservient?...divinely inspired or tradition? Islam is no stranger to ambiguity or for that matter contradiction....divisively so.

While the average Muslim is more conversant with the Koran, the theologians' interpretation of the scripture corpus, the Hadis (which includes the Koran) intrudes into every aspect of their lives. To paraphrase in summary: Islam is more than a religion, it is equally a political force and a military force —Islam is complete and completed. There is absolutely no separation of religious belief from state control. With that summarization, let's consider the next most popular religion."

The next most populous religion is Confucianism/Taoism. For some reason, probably because they are both indigenous to China and remain mostly parochial to China, Confucianism and Taoism are often considered together. Moreover, in contemporary context, they are for the most part indistinguishable philosophically. Because of the vastness of China, including surrounding regions where these religions are found, and because of the high population density there, it is estimated that one fourth of the world's population are adherents of these two religious faiths. However, because they are not spread geographically, Confucianism/Taoism is not considered as dominant as Islam.

The formative writing by Lao-tzu resulted in the principle text of Taoism, Tao Te Ching (the Book of the Way and the Power), and it is basically a treatise of a philosophical nature on origins and conduct...the Tao (way or path). Later writers and interpreters asserted a more religious motif reverting back to traditional Chinese speculation on these matters going back many millennia. The result has been the development of a multifaceted belief system which embraces spiritism, ancestor worship, and a pantheon of gods.

Confucianism is similar but more pragmatic; at least in its original form. Confucius apparently did not write anything himself, the "scripture" in existence being the product of his many early disciples, principally a man known as Mencius. One of these earliest of nine books, the Lun Yu (Analects) is a collection of Confucius' sayings and is considered fundamental to Confucian thought. In summary, Lun Yu provides a fundamental concept (called Li by Confucius) and is basically a philosophical treatise on moral conduct through restraint, but one which includes the worship of spirits. It was Mencius who expanded the latter theme with the philosophy of inherent human "goodness". Several hundred years after Confucius' death, the emperors of that time made these philosophies a state religion and eventually elevated Confucius to god-hood.

About one-eighth of the world's populations are thought to be adherents of the Hindu religion. This religion seems to be the epitome of ambiguity in its mythology, rendering it impervious to forensic analysis. Hindu authoritative analysts make the claim that the Hindu religion is both monotheistic and polytheistic (without rational explanation of this contradiction). The multitude (millions---possibly one for every adherent) of gods are said to be subservient to the one god said to be the "ultimate reality" which then, in reality, must be a non-reality. One Hindu sage claims (to paraphrase): "Hindu mythology is an inextricable tangle of imaginative thought". Even though the opinion of most scholars is that Hinduism is mythology based, the book World Religions devotes a significant percentage of its pages to the development of this religion whose scripture is so extensive it defies summarization. The Vedas, taken to be its foundation scripture, are claimed to be the oldest known writings of a religious nature but in reality have no religious dogmatic content per se because they are simply a collection of ancient prayers and hymns. To put it bluntly, to have the Vedas stated as the representative scripture is anachronistic because they have little or no bearing on contemporary Hindu practice. The Vedas are just a small portion of Hindu scripture that has come about in the millennia since the Vedas were written. But then it is probably best to just quote "World Religions" lead sentence on this religion: "Hinduism [and its scripture] is a vast subject and elusive concept[ually]".

The number of adherents drops sharply after Hinduism and is the case of the Buddhist religion, the next most popular. It is estimated that one in twenty, or five percent of the world's population follow the Buddha's teaching The earliest known writings with a philosophy attributable to Siddhartha Gautama, who became known as the Buddha, were apparently set down by his followers some five hundred years after his death and were written in the Tibetan language Pali and called [the] Tipitaka. It is a stretch to call these writings scripture. They would more accurately be termed philosophical perspectives on life and contain certain "noble truths" for a happier existence...the so called "eightfold path". Were it not for a vague notion of "salvation" the Tipitaka could be considered an atheist treatise since no reference to God (or gods) is made and salvation such as it may be, is achieved through one's personal effort. It was in later centuries that a multitude of other writings appeared which took on a religious motif. These later scriptures are so vast that no attempt is made to even summarize them here. It seems to be a universal opinion that these later writings are myth based."

"About two percent of people worldwide adhere to the Shinto faith, estimated to be no more than 100,000,000, mostly Japanese, and mostly nominally attached. It is generally agreed the religion is myth based (if there is a God worshiped it is a sun god). In Shinto contemporary written material (limited scripture as it may be) is mythology based as it is in Hinduism.

The Mormon religion is considered in this analysis even though its adherents make up an insignificant percentage of the world's population. This is so because it presents a contemporary example of how a religion, one based on mythism, and one with a substantial following, originates. The book, "World Religions" gives considerable space to the various theories on how religions in the distant past originated especially myth based religions. The theories pass over a wonderful example of such a happening, practically within the lifetimes of those theorists; the origination of the Mormon religion. For example, the book, "World Religions" devotes only a paragraph to the Mormon religion. In the book of Mormon, the "prophet" J. Smith, who purportedly translated it from "precious metal plates", incorporates texts and personalities from the Bible (as was the case with Islam) which muddies the water so to speak. However the storyline is considered entirely fictitious or mythological by authorities outside of Mormonism. The plates have since "disappeared", their existence having only been verified by individuals under the influence of Mr. Smith. It is interesting also that the translation by Smith was made in the religiously popular "King James" English not the contemporary language of the 1860's. The many violent accounts, sometimes involving large cities and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of people, have not been substantiated by archeological evidence any-where in the world, let alone in the Americas where Mormons claim most of the events took place. Moreover the lengthy speeches attributed to Jesus, as translated from the "plates" by Smith, are uncharacteristic of Jesus in content. All of the supposed prophesies by individuals in the text were already known to have occurred when the Mormon book was written. It is the opinion of critics, and which I share, that the Book of Mormon is mostly (except for Biblical references) the product of Smith's fertile imagination. I rank it as original mythology.

These thumbnail sketches I have given hardly do justice to their subjects to which religious historians have devoted many pages of descriptive text to each (except for the Book of Mormon). Those of you in this class who are adherents of the religions mentioned will possibly take offence at these summaries. To you I extend my apologies. It is hoped though that the sketches have captured the essence of these particular religious scriptures. In this course no attempt will be made to give attention to the multitude of other writings in existence that can be considered scriptural in tone whether found in formal religions or not.

"What conclusions can be drawn from these thumbnail sketches of the dominant scriptures? For one thing they all exhibit mythological elements as these scriptures exist today; in a few cases, like the Bible, these elements exist in the "original" writings. While this is true of these particular scriptures, it is possible that mythological elements exist in all scripture but that is speculative on my part. It is a mistake however, to label scripture, as defined here, as completely mythological, as some do, because in most instances they contain philosophy pertaining to a "higher good", better aspirations for mankind to seek, and so forth. The Bible states to the effect: [Good] things are written on the hearts of mankind. To the extent scriptures do this, then the adherents to these "faiths" based on these elements exert a positive influence on society in general—a commendable characteristic in my opinion.

Since all the scriptures considered so far contain mythical elements as well as wisdom sayings and conflicting morality characteristics; as do other scriptures not considered; then on what basis do adherents to a particular "faith" cling so fervently, especially when they pay little attention to their respective scripture? This is a good and a relevant question, but one requiring another complete course of in-depth study. Science is only beginning to understand the many factors involved in the human brain's associations with these matters such as cultural and family factors. A good example of this familial binding has been provided by Mahatma Gandhi who denied the authority of Hindu scripture where it opposed his philosophy and who is said to have rendered his personal feelings about it in a letter to Nehru. In this letter Gandhi said, in effect, that he "loved" Christianity, Islam and many other faiths, but despite not being able to tolerate some of the Hindu teachings, he could not forsake Hinduism. I, your lecturer, also am not immune to these subjective factors as much as I would like to be found impartial. From childhood on I was exposed to Christian teaching, so one can, with good reason, question my claim to be providing a neutral analysis. I must leave this judgment to others.

Are there other characteristics that distinguish or make one scripture more authoritative than the others in the interface between the universe of reality or materialism and the universe of non-materialism or the realm of God? (Some philosophers claim the non-materialistic universe is the 'real' reality but semantics such as this confuses the issue and thereby the rational mind.) Many scriptures contain "miracle stories" (and secular books do as well) which, because of associated ambiguity, many claim to be mythical. But what about the "miracle" of prophesy, that is predictive prophesy? In the aspect of confirmed prophecy (which would seem to imply some connection with the spiritual realm or greater intelligence) the Bible is unquestionably superior to any other scripture.

Another possible way to distinguish or establish a hierarchy of scriptural authority is to consider the source of scripture—the leaders or writers. This is the subject of the remainder of today's lecture and it incorporates some of what you students have come up with.

How did the world's scripture come into existence? In some cases it is known fairly well but in others it is shrouded in mystery. There seem to be three main avenues claimed by adherents (both lay and scholarly), the first and second being the most popular:

Divine Attribution

Inspiration

Human Intervention (usually in combination with Inspiration)

I would like to add a fourth, namely "human imagination" This fourth avenue, human imagination, for some reason, is rarely explicitly stated but Inspiration, and especially Divine Attribution is rarely rejected. The charge Mythology is only leveled by opponents or critics. Imagination is a rarely used term. In the brief summary given previously it would appear that the bulk of scripture really is due to this avenue; human imagination. This conclusion of mine takes us back to ambiguity for how does one discern between imagination and inspiration, especially if the inspiration is claimed to be a result of a some kind of direct connection to a 'superior intelligence'(3). Once again, an in-depth discussion of such issues cannot be undertaken and you students can find extensive literature on brain research, on 'savants', etc., and the associated speculation.

Well that is enough for today's lecture. Next week we will tackle the "originators" I will be using then material you students have submitted.

*** one week later ***

Anton steps to the podium and starts right in. "The World's scriptures had to be written by humans; that is rather obvious despite the claims of a minority that "their" scripture magically appeared through divine providence. Adherents usually claim divine inspiration for "their" scripture, whether the writers are identified or not. In many cases what was initially written down, was subsequently modified, adulterated, etc. by other writers. This would seem to limit the confidence which can be placed in the claimed inspirational authority of the scripture in question.

In most cases, when the founder is known, his message was put into written scripture by others. It is an interesting fact that the originators behind the world's major religions (and some of the minor ones as well) did not write the scriptures that are associated with them. This is the case with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and the more contemporary Joseph Smith (the Book of Mormon was dictated in a special manner).

As promised, today you students speak, through me, about scripture originators. I was going to choose the best, but since they were all pretty good I've selected at random instead. I've also chosen to do some condensation. Let us explore, in limited detail, these "originators" of the associated scripture. Again, taking them in the same order as was done for the scriptures; so the first to be considered are the Biblical prophets.

Some of you chose to write about the Old Testament prophets in addition to Jesus so I will briefly include that material. I hasten to add however that these prophets cannot be considered the 'originators' of the 'Jewish' religion."

"The Prophets were outstanding features of the Old Testament and there were many; whether or not they performed the actual writing is a matter of some controversy. Of the many prophets in the Old Testament, only two of the most notable, those making confirmed predictions, are considered this morning. As noted previously, confirmed predictability may be the most reliable indicator of genuine connectivity with the spiritual realm in my opinion."

Isaiah

"The Biblical record states that Isaiah was active in the sixth century B.C. and had a wife of some note and children; nothing else about his background is provided. To avoid getting involved to deeply, the most significant of his many predictions concerned Jesus and a king of the Mede s. The king of the Medes was named Cyrus which ancient Greek historians (as well as specialists in the semantic language of the Medes) claim means 'sun' a likely possibility since ancient kings seem to have worshipped the popular Sun God. Discussions of the predictions themselves are outside the scope of this course and are readily available elsewhere."

Daniel

"Daniel also was involved with Cyrus since, at the end of his life, he lived under the rule of Cyrus. Nothing is known about Daniel outside of what he reveals in the book of the Old Testament attributed to him. The book of Daniel is mostly concerned with his miraculous life (e.g. the well-known story of the lion's den) and prophesies; but his most important prediction and one not requiring significant analogical or metaphorical interpretation was the prediction of when the Messiah would appear. Even this prediction requires substantial interpretation of the exact words appearing in the prediction but less than those associated with say Nostradamus."

Jesus

"The foremost prophet in the Bible, in terms of affirmed predictions, is Jesus and his predictions are considered in detail later in the course. What is known about Jesus is through eyewitness accounts found only in NT scripture. The eyewitness accounts of healing miracles and the unique resurrection account are very hard to dismiss as mythological as extremist critics attempt to do."

Next I want to consider the religious founders of the other major religions. It is interesting to observe that these founders are also considered to be prophets by their respective faith adherents even though they made no specific prophecies at all let alone verifiable prophecies. They would be more accurately termed 'oracles'. Of these the first is Confucius.

Confucius

In a book disputed by some, Shih Chi (Historical Record), written by Su-ma Chine in the latter part of the second century BC, Confucius is said to have lived in the sixth century BC. The record gives considerable detail among them being his real name was Chungni K'ung, and he had a high degree of intellectual capacity especially about history, and, despite being born into modest circumstances, studiously involved himself to the point that he could successfully engage as an itinerant teacher and gain a large following. He became known as 'K'ung the Master' which Jesuit Priests many centuries later Latinized into Confucius. His epitaph at his gravesite in Shantung Province reads: 'Ancient, Most Holy Teacher'. What did Confucius teach? In brief and in contemporary terminology, it was a mixture of moral philosophy and spirituality with the admirable goal of improving society. He himself was no saint, having abandoned his family, wife and child, early in life. His method of teaching and other aspects of his later life was remarkably similar to that of Jesus. Despite many years of effort, he failed to find acceptance by Chinese hierarchy and died in obscurity but the wisdom of his teachings continues on in a religious setting. In later centuries, Chinese rulers found it expedient to formalize the teachings and eventually to elevate Confucius to be a worshiped god.

Lao-tzu

Nothing of unquestionable veracity is known about the founder of Taoism. Legend has it that he, along with Buddha, also lived in the sixth century BC and like Buddha escaped the civil turmoil by retreating into nature. It was several centuries later that the historical record, Shih Chi claimed certain factors about Lao-tzu (which means Old Master or Old One) one of them being his real name was Li Erh, and that he wrote a short treatise about the ancient philosophy of Tao. This treatise became the sacred book known as Tao Te Ching, the principle scripture of Taoism. Li Erh died under unknown circumstances. Because of these factors, it is questionable that Li Erh is actually the founder of Taoism and is at the very least irrelevant to the religion and its basis.

Mohammed

"Since the originator(s) of Hinduism is unknown, we will move on to Islam and its founder Mohammed. Mohammed, a supposed illiterate, was dependent upon others to write down what he said. Compared to other founders, much is known about Mohammed's life with certainty from birth, childhood and on into maturity and finally his premature natural death. His life, unlike most other founders, does not appear to be the epitome of virtue. Convinced by his relatives that he received messages from the angel Gabriele while in a trance state over a period of years on an irregular basis, he proclaimed himself a prophet. His claimed prophethood was rejected by both Judaism and Christianity at that time. An able leader, he united the disparate Arab tribes, sometimes through marriage. To his credit, he raised the level of morality of the united tribes from immoral convocations and the burial of unwanted babies alive to one in keeping with Judaism. Not only did the unified Arabs disavow their former rituals but became worshipers of a monotheistic God. However, he gained political leadership in part through a demonstration of force first by raiding caravans and then attacking and displacing the Jews and Christians he now hated because of their rejection of his claim to be a prophet of God; finally condoning a murderous annihilation of them. The low point in his morality (by Western standards), besides his multiple wives, came when, late in his foreshortened life, he took to wife a nine year old. Before his death, he initiated the conquest and plunder of surrounding peaceful non-Arabic nations reportedly demanding twenty percent of the plunder. He is not known to have predicted anything as a prophet. To this day though, Moslems are proud of Mohammed, his prophethood, and the empire he and subsequent Mullahs built, and have deified him into perfection."

Buddha

Nothing about the life of Sidhartha Gautama is known with confidence, even his name is of recent derivation; only the name Buddha (the Enlightened One) seems certain and many Buddhists believe him to be the last in an unending line of previous Buddha. Earlier "historical accounts" of the Buddha are obviously mythical. The most credible account relates a remarkable similarity to the life of Confucius in that he too abandoned a wife and child. No written scripture is directly associated with him since, as noted previously, legend has it that his teachings were transmitted orally for hundreds of years. The claim by Buddhists that he attained a state of mental perfection termed Nirvana appears to have a mythological ring to it. Today statues of the Buddha are worshipped around the world as if he were a God, something he never claimed. Nor did his followers make such a claim in the centuries after his death.

Joseph Smith

"Little mention is made of Mr. Smith by Mormon adherents and to their credit he has not been subsequently deified (but current Mormon theology deifies humans in general). His character seems to be keeping with one who would originate a mythological religion. He is generally considered a prophet by adherents to the Mormon faith."

"The forgoing thumbnail sketches hardly do justice to their subjects. Religious historians have devoted many pages of descriptive text to each. Adherents to the religions mentioned will possibly take offence at these summaries. To them I extend my apologies. It is hoped, though, that the sketches have captured the essence of the founders. Subsequent additions, the assimilation of theology between them, the external ritual and ceremony attached, and the interweaving of mythology and other imaginative concepts as well as pompous decree have done much to change the associated religions; such that, it is doubtful that the founders would recognize their creations were they to come back to the present.

With the exception of Hinduism and Shintoism where no specific founder can be identified, only four founding figures command the attachment of the majority of the world's worshipers, Jesus, Confucius, Mohammed, and Buddha. Superficially at least, it appears that all four men are worshipped as gods by most of their adherents; but being a god was something none of them ever claimed.

Besides the foregoing, what conclusions can be drawn from the analysis so far? Overall, in my estimation, the Bible ranks the highest of all scripture in credibility because of the predictive factors cited. Perhaps that is the reason, those predictive factors, that the Bible via Christianity has attained the position of peaceful dominance among the people of the world.

If one asserts the same level of credibility to the Bible as to other scripture then the evidence one finds there concerning the personage of Jesus and his authority to speak on religious and spiritual matters is superior to any other individual known. It is for this reason exclusive attention is given to his teaching from this point on.

When the monotheistic religions are combined, over half the world's population subscribe to the monotheistic concept. On the other hand if one combines those religions advocating a peaceful, contemplative, and non-aggressive way of life, one that is respectful of the right of others to live and believe in their own way, then fully three quarters of the world's people are of that mind set. They wish the entire world could be that way. Conspicuous by its absence in this second accounting is the religion of Islam. One fourth of the world's population follows the teachings of a founder who left a legacy of conquest and plunder of peaceful (Christian) nations surrounding Arabia. The threat of conquest by force was finally resisted in Spain. As a reminder to the world, the largest Islam Mosque is located in Cordoba, Spain(4). As a reprehensible secular/religious movement with the goal of world domination, it is to be resisted not accommodated.

With that bit of warning I conclude today's lecture. Thank you.

### 5..Sparkling Snow Part Three

" **Hi** Honey I'm Home"

"I'm on the can...I'll be right there."

Anton threw his light-weight winter jacket, imitation camel, on the chair wing and looked out the great room window at the snow bedecked lawn sparkling in the newly revealed late afternoon sunlight. It really wasn't a great room just a remodeled and enlarged dining room. Marge had cleverly closed it in for the Thanksgiving dinner to give it a cozy welcoming feeling. The fireplace helped. The diner had gone well.

Marge came out and pirouetted before her astonished husband. Amazed at the pretty woman before him in a most becoming outfit he could only stammer out..."Youuu youu weren't on the John!" "I lie a lot". "You don't lie enough". Anton made a fake movement of ravishment and Marge fell limp in his arms with her slender neck arched in anticipation. Anton satisfied her. "You're a wonderful lover," she shivered a murmur. Anton stood her back on her high heels to admire her. "Where?" He asked.

"Victoria's"

"Wow....and look what a coincidence". Anton reached into the pocket of the coat, retrieved a plain white bag and opened it to show Marge the contents. The emblazoned "Verterol" so shook her she collapsed into the cushioned chair behind her. The look of anguish on her face shocked Anton to his core. "I...I...I don't underst" "Anton" Marge broke in: "this Victoria stuff is for cuddling by the fire."

"Oh, I misunder..."

"Oh Anton you know how I feel about the other...that hasn't changed".

"Uh..O.K."

"Andy I hunger to get closer to you...I miss our sleeping together...I love cuddling on the sofa with you... but, but...I just don't like it let alone enjoy it. Seeing the stunned expression on her husband's face Marge felt compelled to explain further. I've done some reading that should have been required reading at least in college...I've been naïve...intentionally so I suppose; at least subconsciously...avoided discussing or reading or anything especially with you....I should have brought it up years ago."

"Me too," Anton interjected.

"I've never had an orgasm Anton!"

"You faked??"

"Yeah, faked...Somehow I knew enough to do that...got it over with quicker...Mother!!" Marge choked at the last revelation.

"Wow!!!"

After a sustained silence Marge regained her composure and continued softly to the shocked into silence Anton. "Andy what I've read tells me we can improve the situation without expensive therapy and.... there's hope....with love care and....and prayer I feel..." She added the prayer part very hesitantly. Anton took up the thought sequence to ease the situation without giving it conscious attention.

"Marge honey I'm changing my philosophy on this prayer business and other things as well."

"I've noticed."

"I'm not convinced about the efficacy of group prayer...I'm more in line with Jesus' command and that leads me to think that prayer is most effective in changing a person's inner attitudes."

"Uh, huh."

"I'm praying for us now Marge...maybe you are too!"

"Uh, huh."

Anton gently led Marge out of the chair onto the couch holding both of her hands in his. "Honey I think we have years of conversation to make up...maybe confessions...at least by me. But I think it would be best to get into it gradually...what do you think?" Marge's eyes were now brimming and she could only murmur an "uh, huh." Hugging her, he let Marge slip into her favorite position. "But I'm getting a very full plate all of a sudden...I don't know how I can handle much more..."

"Uh, Huh."

Anton bent over and gave her a tentative kiss on the cheek. "Want me to start a fire?"

"Uuh Uh!, No! This is all I need. "

And their lips met.

That day went and another came. Anton had a busy schedule lined up and he told Marge about it over her typically scrumptious breakfast. Afterwards, having given Marge a very sincere thank you and much needed hugs and kisses, Anton put on his winter gear and started for the front door and, turning around, stopped. Marge, sensing something was troubling Anton, went to his side.

Finally Anton got it out, "I meant it Marg Honey...I want to pick your brains....for one thing your life...your example has changed me so that I now want to....I want to think you are an under-utilized resource."

"Wow!" Marge's exclamation had a recognizable strain of sarcasm.

"Oh come-on Marg....I'm trying to be serious here"

"I'm sorry Andy....I need to change some things too!"

"O.K. forget it." [silence] Anton turned to go out the door.

Marge grabbed his coat sleeve. "Andy please forgive me...I want to contribute...to help out somehow besides domestically if I can. Honestly I was taken back by what you just said. I really didn't take you seriously the last time you said it you know.

" O.K." [silence]

"Marg this is hard for me I don't know where to start....what to say...whatever."

"Well for starters don't call me Marge," and she started to cry.

"OH my God," was all a shaken Andy could say as he turned back to his partner's side.

"Don't cry Honey"

"Don't call me 'Honey' either," Marge said between sobs. "I want to be special—really special in your heart." Marge stopped sobbing and quieted down, shocked at her own outburst. "Wow where did that come from? Andy, let's sit back down at the table and look each other in the eye." Marge said as she wiped hers dry.

"O.K.," Anton took off his coat. "What do you want me to call you?"

"Oh I don't know...it has to come from your heart to satisfy me I think."

"Here we are nearly fifty and starting over."

"That is my fault Andy...I'm the one who majored in social studies in college." Your new attitude is liberating me from submission and I can't handle it. I let you intimidate me from the beginning, not that you did that intentionally. But you have a way of saying things that hurt and I don't think you really mean to, it's just....I let the hurt simmer inside and I shouldn't. Like you said just now: 'we are almost fifty'---you maybe, but not me."

"Gosh I'm sorry Mar...I...I...what can I say? I don't think it will be helpful to engage in guilt exchange just yet. Besides, like I said the other day, I don't think now is a good time to rock the boat with 'true confessions', not that such may be in order...don't worry I won't let that get away from....just not now....now we need to strengthen each other. I guess maybe I am compliment challenged....I didn't realize...wow! So what nam..."

"Slut won't do," Marge interrupted in comic relief and they both laughed so hard they cried; both of them. The irony of laughter caused by gallows humor which relieves guilt over past sins and which leads to tears was lost on them.

"Please give me some time and I will do better than that I hope"; Anton said after a bit.

"Does anyone else call you Andy?"

"Nope! And if any one does in then future I will make it plain that Andy is yours exclusively. Isn't amazing how seemingly little things are so important?"

"Especially in a good marriage."

Anton struggled to change the subject. "I forgot to tell you, one of these Saturdays Clive and I are going to meet at his place...in his conference room at his office complex. Some of his buddies will be there he says but somehow he alludes to it being a meeting about me. Today it's just the two of us....do you want to attend?"

No I don't think that would be wise...I want to be more like your secret advisor- lover...emphasis on lover." They both laughed again.

"I like that! O.K. lover-advisor lets start over. I know you have done a whole lot of reading religious and otherwise so maybe with your perspective you can suggest something for me to utilize or even to write about...the niche I cannot see because of the forest. Or something from your post graduate reading---or understanding....?"

Realizing her partner's sincerity, Marge overcame her desire to take offense and reached across the table to take Anton's hands in hers. She took awhile to search her mind for a studied response.

"I love you Andy".

"I love you too".

"I recently read a book that has really been bothering me," Marge continued. "Perhaps it would be good to discuss it...just between you and me."

"O.K. shoot! But I'm getting time challenged.... the meeting I told you about... can you give me a synopsis?"

"Well, among other things the book is about the fragmentation of Christianity. The author claims this is because...because... he uses words you use all the time but I barely understand and certainly can't remember...because, I think, the Bible itself is fragmented putting it in my vocabulary. Oh I remember one topic...he calls it 'pervasive interpretive pluralism'. And he shows that because of that feature there are many unique beliefs any given person can espouse and find support for in the Bible."

"Well now is great time for me to tell you this, because in my research I pondered this feature some years ago so I agree with what you just said; but what to do about it is another matter. As you have just discovered, such a conclusion was not original with me. Then I found out that others came to the same conclusion many years before I did...that's why I never brought it up to you I guess...no that's not right either " Anton paused lost in thought then looked over at Marge. "At least someone else has put a label on it. That's good Ma...." Anton caught himself in mid stride. "Do you have the book?"

"Not anymore. It caught my attention at the library...if I can't get there again I'll buy it...maybe on line. Maybe I should invest in a 'Kindle' or something"

"Good idea...get two of them...that way we can read it together."

"Oh Andy what a grand idea....but, but can we afford it?"

"Can we afford not to?" Anton interrupted with enthusiasm. "Anything else you can remember about the book?"

"I cannot remember the exact terminology but I think the problem is probably due to many voices which I think means many writers. Oh and multiple meanings and different values, oh I remember....he calls this all 'semantic indeterminacy'."

"Interesting! What's the guy conclude from all this?"

"The Bible cannot be authoritative about anything."

"You're kidding!"

"Yeah...No, I mean I wish I was kidding," Marge lowered her eyes: "Anto....Andy I go with you to church only because I think it best that I do...to show what a respectful dutiful wife you have. I'm finding the platitudes and dogma ever more irritating from my interpretive perspective.....a 'loving God' who permits evil to continue despite Jesus claiming he conquered it...disease hardship...on and on...a God we are to trust? I don't think so...how can the Bible be authoritative to my life....anybody's life in our scientific age?"

"You aren't alone sweetheart; I can rattle off names of colleagues, religious professors and professionals who have left the faith over such issues...I have come close myself. Men of the cloth do what they are trained to do. It is a tradition that has been ongoing for thousands of years. Religious structures are built on pragmatism."

Marge gave Anton an intense stare at the troubled look in his eyes.

Anton continued "I am no stranger to a 'doubting faith'...one who calls out 'Lord, help me with my disbelief'."

"Andy, the book gives lots of examples of doubt causation and most of them seem to revolve around Paul's writings...what do you make of that? My thoughts are more and more about why does the church give so much importance to what Paul came up with and the book of Revelation too...I've read that Revelation had a rough go of it in being accepted by the early church...what is your opinion on that?"

"Good questions swee..." Anton caught himself again, and in embarrassment couldn't go on.

Oh Andy its o.k., its o.k. Call me Marge if you want....I was being super sensitive...we'll work it out...I know you really love me. For heavens sake please don't get the idea that I am impossible to please or that I have unreasonable expectations......please dear..."

Well the same goes for you and "Anton". Just remember even my worst enemy, Bob, calls me that. And they both laughed with the relief that overcame them until their sides hurt. Anton took his turn and enveloped Marge's hands in his own.

"I know you love me too."

"You know in my meeting with Clive some days ago I mentioned to him that my teaching methodology seems to require a transformation if I am to hang on. And Clive said that the Christian church needed the same in his opinion."

"I just read a book that made the same claim."

"Get it....and the Kindles too" Anton said in a mock authoritative voice. That is if you really want to be my advisor-lover!" Anton got up, re-coated, and bent over to kiss the upturned expectancy. "You know I really don't want to leave, but man I'm late as it is. We've a lot to talk about tonight"

In the spirit of the moment Marge got carried away and voiced a long held thought that before fear had blocked: "Andy have you ever considered writing a modern day morality play?"

Caught off guard and torn by conflicting demands and before his reflexive defenses could arise, Anton answered simply, "No, but I will". And he swept quickly out through the front door.

"The theoretical ideals of evangelism collapse

because of the pervasive interpretive pluralism

the Bible induces—if this were not so the conflicts

and divisions in Christianity would not exist"

Abridged from Bible made Impossible

by Smith

6. Critique Upon Critique

**Anton** opened the side door to the lecture hall. He was a few minutes behind schedule and chose this door to mask his late arrival. He was struck with some amazement...the smallish hall was filled . In the furthest corner, high up, he spotted several faculty members. Interest in religion isn't quite dead yet was his reactive thought. Coming to an abrupt halt at the podium he started right in.

"Today I am going to be critical of others but not you students [hearty applause and laughter]. To avoid issues of slander we will, for the most part, concentrate on people long dead. [some laughter] And for those who have not passed through the veil, we will avoid using names. In as much as some of us love to be critical of 'others', my critical assessment, politely called critique, will be limited to religious concerns in keeping with the course's guide-lines and moreover it will be limited to the two major religions which are not mythologically based; namely Christianity and Islam. And in keeping with previous strategy, the larger of the two, Christianity, will be considered first. Use of the word scripture will refer only to the Christian religion until we start a critique of Islam, which won't happen until next semester. By the way, my talk today will be available in printed form in your next workshop.

The literary genre of Bible criticism is not scripture per se but the critique of it is very germane to the thesis of this course so it is well to undertake it. As noted previously, the Bible, especially the New Testament portion, has been studied, analyzed, commented on, and criticized more than any other scripture by far (that is scripture in the general religious sense).

Today we will apply forensic techniques on written 'criticisms' of the recent past on the New Testament portion of this scripture ---a critique if you will, on the criticism by others. The criticism being considered is of a special type, the presentation of judgments, based on analysis, about certain features of the scripture, for argumentative purposes. This involves the process of judgment of pertinent evidence....a process termed criticism in Christian academic circles. 'Bible criticism' in itself, is a complex and controversial subject and to treat it fully is outside the scope of this course. Those of you wanting to pursue the subject in depth can find a start on-line. In very simplistic terms 'Bible Criticism' involves numerous questions and corresponding numerous ways of answering them. For example, a fundamental question is: 'is the Bible an inerrant inspired work or does it incorporate certain human literary characteristics such as mythology and errors?"

[Anton read the next slide out loud for emphasis]

"The realization that speculation and

analysis are futile leads to the mystical practice

'of unknowing'—the pealing away of layers of

supposed understanding of the divine until all

that remains is 'I am' and 'God is'"

adapted from Funk

"This statement by Funk, that I have modified slightly, he applies to 'Mystery religions', 'Eastern Religions' in particular and...as is my speculation for this course....the entirety of religious practice including Christianity (which certainly had its origins geographically close to the 'East'). But shouldn't there be more? I ask, what do we know about our relationship to 'the higher intellect' or whatever one wishes to call the 'Creator'...that is, what is the relationship between the 'I am' and 'God is'? Science is gradually coming to the 'realization' that there is 'something out there' to have created such complexity and with such precision---that God Is. And philosophers/human evaluators (scientists) on this interaction by the human mind are reduced to conclude nothing more than 'I am'; that each of us are...'individuals'. But again this says nothing about the relationship between the two, between 'God' and 'I'.

This philosophical consideration then leads us into today's material----the peeling away of Scripture by what has come to be known as 'Bible Criticism' to see if this process follows Funk's conjecture or not....and if New Testament criticism enlightens the relationship. Has Bible criticism been a useful endeavor in the execution of analysis and speculation? Has Bible criticism resulted in an affirmation of 'I am' and 'God is'? More importantly has it shed any light on the darkness of interaction between the two?

This "criticism" process is, in theory, viewed as being neutral; not weighted as being either positive judgment or negative, although it is often subdivided into positive (helpful) as well as negative. This description well fits the processes we will employ in this course where the judgments of old are to be questioned with the hope that from new analysis/judgment a more positive affirmation can result. It can be pointed out that negative criticism of religion (verbally or written) has a special terminology called 'blasphemy' where negative criticism is thought to be "irreverent". Humans in general seem not to be particularly fond of negative criticism even when it is "meant well" and this is particularly true when it comes to elements of faith or belief especially so when implied questions of authority (really power) is concerned. History is rife with acts of inhumanity over blasphemy issues. No religion seems to be immune from its excesses. In contemporary religions, Islam is outstanding in its desire to eliminate blasphemy, by deadly violence if necessary, as the news media often discloses.

In Germany prior to the World Wars, there was among "liberalized" academia a great interest in biblical research which resulted in theological research into what is now known as "form criticism", "higher criticism", "the determination of "Q", and "the search for the historical Jesus". Most of our interest will center on the "Q" effort which is the most contemporary.

Perhaps the incentive for all these endeavors was the frustration found in developing a harmony of the Gospels (the first four books of the NT). While harmonization is not considered a critical method per se, it implies a negative criticism; dissatisfaction as it were, of the Gospels as they stand. And so we will also briefly look at harmonization later on. The "criticism" of the more recent past had lofty goals; to uncover the "real historical" Jesus and to determine the "source" of the Gospels.

Of fundamental importance is the fact that this research has been based on a hypothesis that Mark was the first written and that writing was done after a period of verbal transmission for at least a hundred years. More recently the time frame has been reduced to several generations after Jesus' death. However, the hypothesis, that Mark was the first written gospel and that there was a period of at least several generations of verbally communicated "Jesus teachings", goes unquestioned by generations of seminary graduates up to the present.

In "critical methods" literature, the categories "lower criticism" and "higher criticism" are found. Because of descriptive failure these misnomers convey, they are no longer favored by academia.

Scriptural Criticism

Scriptural criticism in general is certainly not a new endeavor and the results in the past have not been uniformly positive. It seems that from the very earliest of times men wanted a piece of the New Testament scripture action because, as some suspect, of a dramatic information demand , and, ostensibly, to make the scriptures "better"; their motives actually no longer known but nonetheless suspect. After a quiet period for scripture in the mid-centuries when Biblical texts were shrouded in Latin, Luther and then others opened them up so to speak with his translation of both the Old Testament and Paul's writings from Latin into contemporary German; his partner, Tishendorpher, did the translation of the rest of the New Testament. Thanks to Luther and Tishendorpher's efforts, later generations of German scholars were able to disrupt tranquility with their "form", "lower" and "higher criticism" of the scripture in an attempt to get a better understanding and also to further their brilliant theosophical careers. Others have argued their work catalyzed anti-Semitism lurking in the Germanic superiority tribal conscious with the terrible consequences for humanity. If true, the results of this criticism in the period of time preceding WWI remains with us to this day. Let's briefly examine aspects of "scriptural criticism".

Sayings Authenticity

In recent times the issue of the authenticity of Jesus' sayings has been resurrected particularly since the findings in Egypt, and of those in particular, the sayings attributed to Jesus, in the "Gospel of Thomas". It is resurrected in the sense that it was a subject of "lower criticism" Much press in religious circles has been provided especially by the 'Jesus Seminar' people whose technique to establish authority by majority rule of opinion through cast of ballot has stirred some controversy. The subjective claims for authority bring one back full circle to the application of forensic analysis and the issues of fact versus myth and the matter of faith. Jesus himself was concerned about authority. More on this later.

Historical Jesus

The search for a "historical Jesus" begun in the late nineteenth century, may have been precipitated by atheistically inclined scholars who made the claim that Jesus was "mythical"; that he never existed. Another cause may have been the so called "synoptic problem". The synoptic gospels became a problem only when men tried to answer the questions: "why are they---?" as noted previously. The claim that Jesus never existed is no longer taken seriously. Others claim that the search for a better "picture" of Jesus came about because of form criticism to be discussed next. While trying to understand the life of Jesus better is meritorious, unless authentic records are unearthed in the future, it will remain an elusive goal. No secular records of any depth now exist and New Testament evidence is sketchy and its historical background information ambiguous. Suffice it to say, the many theories on Jesus and his motivation have been published. These theories have been criticized by other analysts as hopeful thinking on the part of those authors to make Jesus what they would like him to have been.

Form Criticism

Form criticism is a special method of "Criticism" based on the hypothesis that it is possible to establish the most trustworthy "traditions" about Jesus by studying the associated literary characteristics. Here "literary" can mean stories, legends, wise sayings, oral traditions, miracle narratives, etc. A basic tenet of Form Criticism is that a period of several generations existed after Jesus' death where only oral traditions were transmitted before the gospel accounts were written. Thus the literary definition allows for a claim by certain theologians that distortions were incorporated into the gospel accounts by the early church, etc. This claim has been roundly disputed by others and this particular aspect of Form Criticism has fallen into disfavor. But the oral tradition theory is still alive and well....this hypothetical aspect is disputed by some, me included, especially with regard to the gospels with the exception of Luke. The counter argument has gained strength with the concession that Matthew and Mark, possibly Luke and John were written shortly after Jesus' death. This permits the argument that the Apostles were around to monitor divergences. There are several current authors espousing this point of view but again hard proof is lacking.

Redaction Criticism

Redaction Criticism is a more modern and a more obscure aspect of Form Criticism that is useful in balancing the "synoptic" features of the gospel accounts. In this endeavor the research focuses on the distinctive features produced by the writers of the gospels. Again the hypothetical approach has been taken by scholars that a period of oral traditions occurred to provide the opportunity for the distinctiveness found in the gospel accounts.

Two Source Theory (Determination of "Q")

In an analysis of the Gospel's composition, it is readily apparent that sources of information were used outside of the texts themselves, that is, for example, Luke's account contains narrative not found in the three other Gospel accounts; and this aspect of the gospels spurred the analysis effort of lower and higher criticism. Out of this analytical study, based on the hypothesis that Mark was first to be written, a hypothesis itself being a consequence of critical literary analysis, there came another hypothesis---the "two source theory". In this theory it is supposed that the Gospel accounts (except for John), that is Matthew and Luke, utilized exclusively Mark and one other document. Naturally, the hypothesis resulted in a "search" to "recover" this lone document.

Thus this later period of research activity came to be known as a search for the source of this supposed lone document, and because the German word source is "Quille", it became convenient for non-Germanic scholarship to contract the German word and so this effort came to be known as the "search for 'Q'". Since the only available resources are the texts in the New Testament, it is more appropriate to call it a determination rather than a search. The "search for 'Q" is reportedly based on the theory advanced by a German philosopher, Weisse back in 1838. It has very gradually gained adherents. In more modern times the pursuit of this "Q" theory has resulted in a considerable effort by scholars involving esoteric linguistic techniques and computer analysis to deduce this source document. The effort in recent decades has been especially active in America where resources to support such an effort are more readily available. The result is a mysterious document that does not have a source document appearance. In reality of course, it cannot since it is an extraction from existing works—it can rather be viewed as a restricted ultimate harmony of three scriptures –Mark, Matthew, and Luke. This harmonization, the proponents argue, is representative of the core of a historically obscure document. Of course it is possible to argue that Weisse's postulate is not true....that such an ultimate source document never existed and that the evident congruence of the Gospel scriptures is the result of sources being used having things in common. In the resultant Q determination this commonality is highly visible. It is also possible that Luke had more than two sources available to him as his Gospel would seem to indicate. I also note that writings by early church authorities prior to 200AD which have been preserved make no mention of a "Q" type document.

Another problem with Weisse's two source theory is that there are portions of Matthew which are sourced outside of Q; that is, outside of Mark's and Luke's gospels. Some of these Mathew verses include verbatim quotation. It is my counter-thesis (not exclusively mine) that the gospel due to Matthew is a source document in its own right, not dependent on Mark or Luke in any way or any other document. John's gospel has never been questioned as to its origin since it is markedly different from the 'synoptic gospels' and goes its own merry way as a source document. It is only the "synoptic problem" which intrigues scholars. But what if the synoptic problem is not a problem at all? Could it be just different "takes" on the same subject material by independent eye witnesses. And I need to emphasize, Luke was not an eye witness. The fact that the "synoptic Gospels" contain similar if not almost identical quotations obscures the issue.

If it is the case that there were at least three more or less independent source documents which were used by Luke, then Luke's account can be viewed in contemporary terms as the writing by an investigative reporter on paid assignment. This counter-thesis then leaves room for other 'sources' for those texts in Luke's gospel for which no parallels are found in the other three gospel accounts. But to the vast majority of contemporary Christian scholarship such a stance is heresy bordering on blasphemy since modern scholarship now is advancing "Q" as a "Gospel"; a reference text in its own right. Are they, the scholars, seeking authority by inference or maybe, even moral acceptance for "Q" as it has come to be? There are few brave voices in academia that challenge the "Q" establishment. I refer to a recent book, copyright 2004, mainly titled Questioning Q. With all the scholarship lingo, it is not an easy read, but the foreword of the book gives the idea of the stimulus under girding the book. I recommend reading that much and the other books on your reading list that go into this issue in greater depth.

Harmonization

It must be noted that a harmonization of the New Testament goes back as far as the second century with that done by Marcion. He wound up excluding the four gospel accounts altogether. His motivation for doing so seems to be lost in antiquity along with his written work. So we will briefly consider the more contemporary harmonizations. There have been many attempts (not including all those undocumented attempts of which I myself have been guilty) to harmonize the Gospels (which seem to invite such attempts). Perhaps the best known is the one attributed to a President of America, namely Thomas Jefferson. Like other harmonizers, there were features of the Gospel accounts Jefferson was uncomfortable with...the miracle stories and especially the 'virgin birth episode, which in the name of harmonization, he adroitly eliminated ("excised") from his harmonization. Not unexpectedly, this Bible version of Jefferson's was proclaimed the official Bible of the U.S. congress and still is as best I know; (who, but congress can be expected not to believe in myth/miracles...like the miracle of a balanced budget) [not much laughter].

Besides the Thomas and Gundry NIV Harmony of the Gospels, other more recent efforts include the book "Gospel Parallels" which also presents those texts showing affinity in parallel columns; the common practice. Many, if not most, of past editing or 'improvements' and 'harmonization' practices, include the practice of excising (which is employed in my own research on harmonization).

But what of the critics themselves? Why were they content, as it would seem, to criticize the Bible, especially the New Testament, as it stands? By that I mean as it is beheld, so to speak, by scholar and lay people alike, as a completed work (in a general sense putting aside the difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions). Why hasn't there been widespread analysis or criticism of the religious structure itself? Why is the canonicity unquestioned by them, the inerrancy, or finally the concept of inspiration itself? Some have of course, but they are a tiny minority nipping at the heels of the faithful.

Let me take a contemporary example. Professor Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has made a literary name for himself by publishing books of this genre; for instance the book 'Misquoting Jesus' (that's not the full title but it will get you started). Some scholars like him take the position that because there is uncertainty, perhaps in the extreme, a mild form of unintentional misrepresentation, due to differences in extant ancient manuscripts, so that, by inference, little or no trust can be placed in scripture at all. In their mind it is o.k. to sabotage the faith of others that, once upon a time, they themselves held. They justify their position by exaggerating the situation, as do the atheists, with their "evidence" for their belief. When indeed push comes to shove, there is no hard evidence for any religious belief system. Even my posit of likely probability that a Jesus lived and had a ministry must be taken on a level of faith probability since, at this time, two thousand years later, little secular evidence is available. The converse also holds however---it is highly improbable that Jesus never existed and that the "scripture" relating to him is mythological. As of now, hard proof of such a negative contention is impossible because some positive evidence does exist.

Scholars of Dr. Ehrman's persuasion try to convince others that, because of the evidence they present, the New Testament cannot be inspired of God. I personally am convinced that they are correct in this view, but in a limited sense. This is because there is ambiguity surrounding the word inspiring itself. I differ with those well-meaning religious scholars who are quick to defend the conservative position that the whole Bible (every word even) is inspired of God, and so it must be inerrant. Because, they say, an omnipotent God could not make mistakes and so the 'original' manuscripts had to be perfect in every regard; and the few inconsequential differences, are due to intervening errors by scribes etc. My take is that whatever the original "scripture" may have been, notes taken by Mathew perhaps, humans were "inspired" religiously, like famous musicians musically or "savants" mathematically. This is the so called 'liberal point of view' As I tried to point out in the first lecture, at this time "inspiration", in general, remains an unfathomable mystery of human mental activity....maybe brain research will reveal the mystery someday.

Let's get back to the issue of inerrancy. Do I need to remind you that the only place in the Bible making this claim is an implication found in Paul's writing? Also remember when he made that claim the New Testament which we possess did not yet exist. There is some irony in what Paul himself did write; for instance one finds in his letters to the Corinthians the following: "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else." If he was as inspired as some think, wouldn't he have remembered? Those thinking Paul was inspired find their justification in what Paul himself claimed, and I again quote: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." I ask the question; did Paul usurp the philosophical power of Jesus' teachings though he may not have emptied the cross? We find he did not ever quote a verifiable saying of Jesus. And there is another example: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." Or this one: "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." This last commandment is in opposition to what Jesus said in regard to allegiance to him. I am hard pressed to explain why Paul gave his own commandments instead of offering Jesus' view. On the other hand I do grant to Paul enthusiasts that he did have good things to say that were in harmony with Jesus' teaching.

There are a few who wonder about the rather strange unreferenced titles found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These few people, who take a stance that some of the scrolls are contemporary with Jesus' ministry, which is at variance with official one, assert that "the Teacher of Righteousness" title refers to Jesus himself. No other convincing figure has been identified. In that same scroll a reference is made to an unknown "Liar". These same people make the claim that Paul is the one being referred to. It is not too much of a stretch to see that Paul, as a student of Gamaliel, could espouse the Temple priestly dogma to which the Qumran Essenes were very much opposed. This would have been near the end of Jesus' ministry. That Paul was not a man of strong moral commitment is found in Acts where Paul, claiming he would die for the cause, instead sought refuge in his Roman citizenship when push came to shove. And there is the remark by Paul himself where he says that he endeavors to be all things to all people (in order to win converts).

What I just said about Paul is kind of aside but still pertinent to the point I'm trying to make with the question: why does Christian religious scholarship pick on the structure of the Gospel and ignore for the most part issues that really are divisive? Even some of the scholars clinging to the theories just discussed admit to a self defeating consequence of conventional analysis.

For example I quote a German scholar, a Q advocate, who recently wrote: "In view of the fact that scholarship [of the synoptic gospels] has yielded so many contradictory [subjective] results..... And I paraphrase another analyst who in essence stated: it is ironic, the more the individual documents have been exposed to intense subjective analysis, the less the New Testament as a whole has become understandable. And yet another admission: the historical study of the New Testament (primarily the synoptic gospels) has steadily undermined the traditional legitimations of the [Bible] as a whole. And, I might add, has caused the huge rift between these scholars and the church at large. The later, to resist the intellectual onslaught, has taken refuge in declaring the Bible God inspired, and inerrant so as to ward off the attacks on credibility. The result has been the major religious institutions shedding their academic cancerous centers of higher learning that they were responsible for creating in the first place.

Now the dogmatic positions have so solidified over the decades that few individuals see any hope of unification under one banner of a leadership, a leadership the banner proclaims and which is held aloft by all and yet ignored. Most everyone sees the need for a change in light of the declining role of traditional church fellowship in society; but the morass of human emotions seems to prevent its fulfillment.

Is there a leader here among you students who can recognize this quandary and seek to solve it within the teaching of the Messiah. I believe the answer will have to come from the younger generation. Young leadership, uninhibited by the traditions of their elders, has the tremendous energy that will be required for a metamorphosis to a more true approach to the gospel of Jesus. The scripture for it exists. With that thought I conclude this lecture. Thank you all for your attention to this critique of religious philosophy."

### 7. Sparkling Snow- Part Four

**Anton** squinted at the bright snow which reflected the late Saturday sunlight as he stepped out of the car. "My appreciation of beauty is on the upsurge," he mused. But he paused in admiration only briefly because he was eager to tell Marge about the meeting. To his dismay he was greeted at the door by a note that read "Andy be back soon Love"

"Darn," Anton thought to himself in disappointment. He opened the door to be greeted by a rich aroma of food smells he couldn't identify but which stirred up a latent appetite. "Hmmm good," he said out loud to himself. Anton went over in his mind how to change the scenario from what he had planned which included taking Marge out to dinner. He spent some time condensing the afternoon's conversations in his mind and the way to discuss it in an evening meal at home. Anton now wanted very much to encourage his partner, his wife, to engage her and not put her off. "Sensitivity training is what I need," he thought to himself.

His contemplation was suddenly interrupted by the sounds of an arriving car in the driveway. Anton was so self-absorbed in thought he hadn't taken his winter coat off. He went to the front door and surprised Marge by opening it just as she was about to. They said Hi to each other simultaneously.

Her surprise at the door opening automatically didn't stop Marge from blurting out upon seeing Anton with a coat on: "Are you coming or going?"

Anton responded with some quick wit, "I'm so busy I don't know." and they both laughed.

Just a bit later, after they had removed their winter coats, Marge walked into the sunroom with a tray full of steaming coffee and mugs and Anton trailed from the kitchen with all the necessary accessories and the freshly made goodies Marge had baked that morning. They set down the trays on the small elevated coffee tables on either side of the new matching recliners Madge had purchased to replace the raggedy old settees.

"Oh Andy look at that scene out there...isn't that just gorgeous with all that new snow...and how the setting sun is...it's just the right amount of snow to give beauty without resenting having to shovel it. You aren't looking at it!"

"I'm admiring the beauty inside," Anton said with a beaming smile

"Oh stop it," Marge said in mock irritation trying to suppress her enjoyment of the sincere compliment.

"O.K. I'll join you in enjoying the view but more in savoring our get-togethers. And these recliners...ooo-aaah," Anton exclaimed as he crashed into his identical favorite recliner.

"Isn't amazing what money will buy these days" Anton half whispered as he sunk into luxury—at least for him. "I sure appreciate your buying these recliners from your first paycheck...something for us," Anton continued. ".... Besides your new wardrobe...."

"That was for us too silly one," Madge interrupted.

Anton went silent, perplexed as to how to extricate himself from the unintended slight. "Now I'm becoming too sensitive," Anton wryly mused to himself.

To break the silence Marge came up with: "Do you like my new jogging outfit?....I got it as a present just for me!"

"Hey, I said I was admiring the beauty inside...yes I like it, but it's the new beauty inside it that is for us."

Marge sank deep into her recliner to savor the cleverness of the double compliment. The look of sheer delight on her face was not lost on Anton.

"You're no slouch yourself anymore either," she said at last. Catching herself Marge continued, "I'm mean relative to your former self...Oh, Oh! How do I get myself out of this one?"

Anton laughed, "I know only one way darling" and he reached his hand over the chair arm to a hand extended in complete love and admiration.

I love you Andy! You are such a dear! Marge said this with such an unmistakable touch of pride that Anton was taken aback and settled back in his chair, took a sip of coffee, a bite of cold "cuba" and Marge followed suit. The recliners were angled so that they could look at each other without strain.

Anton finally got himself together. "I guess I didn't get much sleep last night. I think its going to happen Hone..Madg... Anton stopped before he could get going. Marge laughed.

Oh Anton forgive me for laughing but my mother did the same thing with us girls starting with oldest going down the line half saying the names until she got to me with what she wanted me to do. And you can even call me humpy...that's in the arty literary sense not literal. And they both laughed hard.

"Well that reminds me," Anton continued, wiping a small joy tear from a corner of his eye. "I've been secretly trying to come up with a term of endearment that would work for both of us."

"I've changed my mind about that so don't fret about it. I've come to appreciate all the different terms you use even if they are common place. It's the sincerity I cherish. Want to tell me about today before we play?" Marge asked with a self satisfied smirk because of her spontaneous poetry.

"How can I say neigh to thay?" Anton responded with something that didn't quite work. They both giggled.

"You are in such high spirits I guess I can risk telling you and telling you about yesterday as well....it was both good and bad but mostly good," Anton said to a suddenly serious partner.

And so Anton spent a good part of the evening, before and after dinner, relating as best he could, all of the significant events.

"Well first of all, yesterday was not all that great, but still in a way it was wonderful. I tell you Marge that our working together was just what I needed...clearing my mind, putting ideas together, and the perspective of it all." Anton was getting excited by the remembrance and was speaking so fast Marge was losing words and not comprehending.

"Whoa Andy dear; I knew something big happened last night at your meeting when you came home so late, and I missed my bed partner this morning."

"I didn't want to disturb you."

"Thanks, I didn't hear a thing."

"Good!"

"So tell me...I can't wait to hear, but a little slower please so that I can understand!"

"Sorry!"

Anton told Marge about his meeting with Chancellor Bob and his immediate boss, Bev, on Friday afternoon. Friday afternoon meetings were ominous enough and it had not started out well. Bob was reluctant about permitting the play that Anton had written although Bev was clearly ambivalent. Bob wasn't sure he would have to clear it with the board but if it was kept short and low keyed maybe he could get by without having to do that. It was clear he didn't want to stir up anything. The discussion had continued overtime and Bob surprisingly invited Bev and Anton to dinner. Anton had screwed up enough courage to interject that he was meeting with a small group of supporters that evening to formulate a large independent but related undertaking. This immediately caught Bob's curiosity and he suggested that if possible could the meeting be held at his home after dinner. And so it came to be that an intense discussion took place until the wee hours.

Marge interrupted with a call to dinner from her recliner. "It's all been done through automatic timers; modern technology does have its benefits." Then Marge added, "But you will have to help set the table".

"Gladly, I've been so caught up in yesterday I've even forgotten how hungry the aromas from the kitchen had made me."

Over dinner Marge told Anton her day's activities after she had quietly slipped out of the house. Besides the scheduled jogging, she had researched information helpful to her new position with the human resources division. Her enthusiasm had already garnered a pay increase.

After dessert which was Anton's favorite ( Marge's secret custard based home made vanilla ice cream ala chocolate syrup...lots of it), Anton continued with what happened post Friday.

"The meeting today was sort of spontaneous in the aftermath of yesterday's". Anton smiled broadly to let Marge know he wasn't serious about "aftermath".

"Who all was there?"

"Clive, of course, and Winton too, of course, and Winton's buddies—his investors I guess...I'm still too tired to remember their names...I doubt you would know them anyway. We talked about forming a formal group and scheduled meetings that sort of thing."

Anton went on to describe the meeting which lasted for hours, well through the catered lunch.

"I think it's going to happen, Marge darling, at least the morality play".

Anton repeated himself, this time finishing the thought. He went on to explain the expertise that would be required for a major production and how it would be up to others to get it.

"They are looking to me for philosophical content, but I feel I should do nothing except to present the teachings of Jesus and just his teachings alone and my friends agreed."

"And I agree," said Marge. "But don't sell yourself short....you know an awful lot about the Bible and you could add commentary, no?"

"I hadn't considered that possibility." Anton got lost in thought for a moment then he said, "Not only are you are my best friend Marge, you're a great advisor too. Hon, how about the other part of the secret "advisor-lover"? Care to show me your expertise?"

Marge laughing said, "I would love to".

Anton responded with a hearty laugh himself and Marge led Anton out of his recliner.

### 8. A Play On Words

**Anton** strode into the new for him lecture hall, one considerably larger than his previous venue. It was full of students, course auditors, some faculty, and plain spectators. His "Good morning" was returned with polite applause to which he responded with a "Thank You" followed by: "I hope you all have had a good laugh already because the first part of today's lecture is about laughter but in a deadly serious way". The complete attention of his audience was satisfying.

AND JESUS LAUGHED

"There is a book with a title something about a 'Laughing Jesus' and there is even a chapter in it with such a title. However, the book is about anything but a 'laughing Jesus'. Now there is another book I wish to relate to the Laughing Jesus book. Ann Blye is famous for her economic treatise 'Alas Shrugged' the title of which is based on the myth (appropriately enough) that the world is held on the shoulders of this imaginary giant (a well know statue exists). The trope is what would happen to the economic world if the mythical Atlas shrugged....not good. In a somewhat analogous sense, Jesus can be thought to hold up the spiritual world and what would happen if he laughed? What would happen to the 'spiritual world' if it perceived its leader was a light-headed comedian? Interestingly enough there is no record in scripture of Jesus laughing. Lucky for the world then, that neither has Atlas shrugged nor Jesus laughed; which is why the 'laughing' book really couldn't say anything about a laughing Jesus. Some of Jesus emotions are recorded in the Bible but not silliness, joking around or other light human goings on; not even at a joyous wedding celebration. One can easily form the opinion that Jesus might have been melancholic, or at least overly serious. Other emotional states are certainly recorded such as crying, anger, exasperation and impatience etc. but not laughter. The gospels record an inordinate dedication by Jesus to authenticating his authority in matters relating to the spiritual interface between physical and non-physical realities. Moreover, he was most frequently attacked by Jewish adversaries over the issue of his authority. Finally it was his kingly authority (really attributed to him by others) that was used against him in the provocation of his death. This was all serious business as is called for in dealing with life's purpose and the hereafter.

In my library is an older book that claims to be a "layman's guide to protestant theology". It was written by an earnest and thoughtful seminary graduate with Th. D. degree (a doctorate in theology), hardly a lay person; but that misconstrues the title; it was written for a lay person. In it are discussions on the different theological positions proposed by leading protestant authorities since the reformation. These positions, philosophical really, range from near atheism (like some of the more modern theologians) to high piety. In a contrary sense this course is perhaps a layman's guide to the philosophy of theologians by a genuine "lay person" since I am not a seminary graduate. If Jesus would have had the opportunity to read the aforementioned books on my bookshelf would he laugh? Or would he cry? And this course.....what would be his reaction were he to be sitting in this lecture hall? Would he laugh or cry; would he commend it or condemn it?

One of the theologians discussed in the Layman's Guide was the twentieth century Christian scholar, Rudolph Bultmann by name, who seems to be perhaps the originator of the "demytholgyzing" concept (if not the word itself) as applied to scripture. Bultmann did not apply his theory to any of the myth based religions considered earlier in this course, but instead attacked what arguably is the least mythological; the New Testament (of course). He proposed that Christianity would be more palatable to "modern" man if the myth like aspects were removed; these principally being, no surprise, the miraculous aspects, since he contended such "myths" affront the enlightened scientific mind. They also seem to have affronted the non-modern Marcian two thousand years ago and former pres. Jefferson some time back (Rudolph possibly ignored his predecessors in this regard).

So if Jesus were to come back to the living here and now in the form he was before his death, would he laugh or cry? Would he declare mankind's wisdom is so much foolishness to God? (I should qualify "wisdom" here pertains to the subject matter of this course, not all of mankind's wisdom...we do not want to unnecessarily affront the scientific community) What would be his reaction to the current religious situation world wide? Would Jesus' reaction to Christian leadership be the same, or nearly the same, as his reaction to the Jewish religious leaders two thousand years ago?

THE PLAY

The surprise I mentioned last week is going to really happen and it is going to happen now. We are, through drama, presenting a hypothetical reaction; a possible answer to the questions I just posed. Some of your fellow students volunteered to entertain us with a short melodrama along these lines. I can't seem to avoid using word play—hahaha! This is not in any way a professional production and rehearsal time has been quite limited because of my demanding academic standards [some laughter]. In the play we will conjecture the reincarnated Jesus' possible reaction to certain dogmatic principles of the Christian faith and contemporary life as we know it in general.

First though, to shorten the presentation time, it is necessary for me to have you use your imaginations to create a scenario for such a reincarnation; a reincarnation from a Jesus entity to a modern day "Yeshua". Let's postulate that the media suddenly becomes aware of this mysterious individual and he becomes an overnight sensation. Reasons for this approach include it being unlikely there would be a second miraculous birth and since it is necessary to have miracles, then a miraculous reincarnation as a mature adult is as good as any...say on the order of Melchizedek. As a commanding figure, this rendition of the Messiah is six foot two with spectacular reddish coppery hair and a well trimmed beard. An outstanding physical feature is his piercing steel blue eyes. He has an unmistakable aura about him so there is no doubt about his charismatic attractiveness. He is constantly surrounded by a crowd of admirers. He is attired in guru type clothing, an unusual woven one-piece under garment, a startling bluish-grey in overall appearance but with captivating undercurrents of different colored threads. This undergarment is only partially concealed by a very white toga-like outer garment. For our purposes here we have this Jesus possess only a partial remembrance of past incarnations through a spectacular, but still very limited, connection with the spiritual realm. In this respect, this Jesus is much more knowledgeable than past or present proficient practitioners of the occult sciences. A protective crowd of his immediate- companion-disciples surround him in public places. While dressed conventionally, they retain a distinctive appearance by having an unusual head covering, a white beanie type thing capped by a small silver spire. Not surprisingly this Jesus insists on being called Yeshua. In keeping with spiritual realm intent, his speech is frequently ambiguously ambiguous but nonetheless it bespeaks of authority. Also imagine he draws huge crowds because people hear him in their minds, in their own native language even dialect

Anton spoke this last part with special emphasis to make a point about charismatic Christians who claim to speak in tongues, when, indeed, it is but gibberish. This subject came up in the workshops. Anton's view is that genuine "speaking in tongues" is a supernatural event; one not readily performed. Anton claims the ability to speak in tongues and other super natural powers were confined to the early church and were lost even by the Apostles over time.

[As Anton speaks several students bring chairs and put them on the stage behind Anton. They are dressed in regular street clothing. Above each chair is a placard stating the role each "actor" will play---Yeshua, host, interviewer, and narrator. In the text to follow the actors will be identified by NARRATOR (Anton), **YESHUA** (male student), **HOST** (male student), and **INTERVIEWER** (female student); Anton is also the "Producer"]

Anton continues: "As you can see, a high level of imagination is required since the students attire is not what I have just described. I will take the role of omniscient commentator and also the show's producer in this play. The setting is a television studio where a popular series called "The Interview" is produced. This is one episode. You all in this lecture hall are the studio audience.

[Anton takes the "narrator/producer" chair alongside the other student actors and continues:]

NARRATOR:

A special version of a popular "reality" program is being broadcast on the new Yeshua phenomenon, the right to do so being a consequence of highly competitive and costly bidding among the networks and between the Yeshua Seminar representatives. We take you now to the television studio where an interview with this Yeshua is about to take place. There is a live audience, all a-twitter, who paid a premium for the privilege of attending. Security is very tight.

After a pause for sponsoring advertisement the well-known program host, after acknowledging sustained audience applause, introduces the interviewer, a highly respected reporter for "Facebook Review", an upstart moderate tabloid very popular with the younger set, and also a host for a popular syndicated television program of her own featuring interviews with newsmakers around the globe. She and some associates were largely responsible for "discovering" Yeshua. Again the audience responds enthusiastically.

While the introductions are in progress, Yeshua appears in his interviewing chair without notice and unanticipated much to the astonishment of the host, interviewer and the shows producers who thought he was still in the make-up room.

[The student actor playing the part of Yeshua enters the stage and takes his place.]

NARRATOR

While the producer, host, and interviewer are startled and nonplussed, they professionally regain their composure.

HOST

We are pleased to have with us today a most unusual individual whose name is on everyone's lips. He goes by the name Yeshua which I understand is Hebrew for Jesus. Welcome Yeshua, Sir, to our program. It is our good fortune to have you here for a live, unrehearsed interview

INTERVIEWER

Sir, may I call you Yeshua? Do you have a surname?

YESHUA

It is as you say. [audience laughter]

INTERVIEWER

With a Hebrew like name Yeshua, I presume you are Jewish, right?

[Yeshua shakes his head negatively.]

HOST

(To the student audience) Our guest seems to be a bit on the shy side! [student audience laughter-prompted by producer]

HOST

Your disciples claim you are a reincarnation. What are you a carnation of, certainly not a flower or milk! [audience laughter] There have been many claimants to be Jesus in the past so where did you come from?

YESHUA

From where I come and where I go you have no knowledge nor can you follow.

INTERVIEWER

Religious folk are surprised you agreed to this interview. Up until we discovered you, you were pretty reclusive. Where did you grow up?

YESHUA

People need to hear and heed the teachings of Yeshua. My words will last forever. I have spoken.

INTERVIEWER

Tell us about your childhood!

YESHUA

I will tell you about the real life that people need to hear!

HOST

Sir you speak often about being here with your back against cannon. We understand your concern of being assassinated. Is this a response to a prior crucifixion some centuries ago (not that we believe that myth)?

YESHUA

You people constantly misunderstand me. Yes, there have been attempts to rid the world of my presence since I've become famous. It was to avoid such threats that I've remained in seclusion so long. But it is not a "cannon" I mean. I take a dim view of the canonicity of the Bible and I'm back here to oppose it.

INTERVIEWER

So you are afraid of being killed!

YESHUA

No not really...I trust in the Lord. [Some in the audience snicker] But let me say a few words about the canon....about the Bible.

INTERVIEWER

We understand you have no formal education in evidence yet your disciples claim you know all. We need to see some indication of your authority to speak about our Bible; some kind of supernatural stuff before we can take your disciples' claims seriously.

YESHUA

I have connections you know nothing about. I have spent a great deal of time reading all the books in your libraries; the ability to do that is one of my signs and that is the only sign this generation will be given...let me say a few words about your canon.

INTERVIEWER

O.K. if you must!

YESHUA

Historical criticism of the New Testament centers on the story of Jesus in the four gospels. The other books don't bother biblical scholars much except in supporting this or that theological apologies. These 23 other books together with the four gospels form the 27 books in the New Testament called the canon. Christian orthodoxy holds that the Old Testament has a canon of 39 books. The terminology 'books' is used loosely as is the word Testament itself. I established a covenant not a "last will and testament". Most of the New Testament books are in reality letters and would be better called chapters were they all by one author which of course they are not. The word canon has come to mean the official collection of these books to which none are to be ever added to or taken from...ever. The New Testament canon has taken on divine significance of its own in the minds of most Christians. The fixation on the canon as you now have it occurred on the demand of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. This part of history is well told in many books. Up until that point in time some of the "books" were held in contention, especially Revelation. Outside the Roman Empire under Constantine's dictatorship, contention continued for quite a number of decades more.

[Producer gives a "yellow" signal.]

HOST

Very few people care about this boring stuff. What is your take on political turmoil the world over? You said revelation. Some say you are prophet like John the Baptist or Mohammad. Reveal to us what lies ahead! Tell us who you think you are! In the past many have claimed to be a resurrected Jesus. Recently there was a claim that a perusal would occur shortly and people gave up all their possessions in vain just to enrich the claimant. Give us a prophecy we can trust!

YESHUA

Canonicity served a good purpose two thousand years ago in helping the widespread new congregations fend off unauthorized scriptures being promoted by the unscrupulous; just like today certain books...along with movies and TV religious personalities....financial gain corrupts; they circled the wagons so to speak in the pioneer spirit. It also produced a negative effect. It brought into equivalent status religious thinking by mere mortal men not possessing the Yeshua credentials. As impossible as it might seem, in certain instances the writings of these men have become more authoritative then the teachings of Yeshua.

How is it possible that men like Paul or a John can gain such authority one might ask? It would seem that, like Mohammad and Joseph Smith, they have what it takes to win people over, to nucleate them. It is hard to identify these characteristics. One thing is clear, humans desire strong leadership identified in a single representative. Especially desired is a leadership that gives hope to dominance over other people...a great king for example, like Herod. What the people want and what is ultimately good for them may not be the same, as the Old Testament intimates with regard to the kings of Israel. Once an amoral power gets established it is difficult to overcome it by non-violent means as history reveals. The moral kind of leadership, rarely evidenced, is not popular with the amoral or at least dishonest, as my martyrdom proves. Experimental error that's what!

INTERVIEWER

Experimental error? Whose martyrdom are you talking about?

YESHUA

Paul and John; now those two were talented orators and writers I am talking about, two prerequisites for leadership initiates. But were their philosophies, as evidenced in the written records, compatible with what we have from Yeshua? There are some, relatively few in number, who think not and I am with them.

HOST

Sir you are difficult to follow!....give us a prophecy we can trust!

[Prolonged silence.]

INTERVIEWER

Your followers call you "doctor". We don't know of any "healings" you have done. Show us a miracle healing...someone in the audience.

YESHUA

I have come to heal broken hearts and hardened hearts are easily broken...those of my followers who have been born in water and spirit understand.

HOST

(Sarcastically) Doctor Yeshua...ha, ha,...Sir,...ha, ha; can we sort of concentrate on our questions?

INTERVIEWER

You talk about Paul. Which Paul are you talking about; the Paul of Peter, Paul and Mary, who wrote such great stuff? [Audience laughter-prompted]

YESHUA

I have much to say about Peter, Paul, and Mary and John too!

INTERVIEWER

(Interrupting) "What John are you talking about....John the crapper? Ha, ha, ha, ha!

YESHUA

Paul, a former murderer, the ignominious leader of the converted Hellenistic early church, who seemingly gave allegiance to Jesus as the risen savior, but paid no attention to preserving the teachings of the Yeshua you call Jesus. This observation by Jesus' eyewitnesses is held generally. What is not critically examined is Paul's development of the grace principle.

HOST

A prophecy! A prophecy! Give us a sign!

YESHUA

You humans have your priorities wrong! When will you gain the wisdom to not have economics and grandchildren rule? Respect for nature by limiting reproduction, the underlying cause of the degradation, is an individual responsibility. Why can't you people see you have exchanged comfort for world wide anxiety! You are engaged in warfare with Nature...and I tell you the truth...Nature will win....Humanity will not!

[Producer signals RED.]

NARRATOR

Switchboards are flooded—cell phones are useless—the internet is down—the angry response to the telecast is now overwhelming.

HOST

Sir, Our time is up, Thank yo....

[Suddenly two male students stand up in the middle of the audience and take off face masks.]

YESHUA

Not you two Rudolphs!!

NARRATOR

The men display small pistols that had evaded detection. They are made entirely of advanced technology-high performance plastic. Then strange noises are heard; almost like tiny firecrackers being set off. The audience is stunned...they cannot believe the events taking place before their very eyes.

[The students on stage fall from their chairs onto the floor—some people in the audience start to panic and scream; others applaud. Anton and the students get up and bow. There is more applause. Anton returns to the podium and resumes his lecture.]

"Well I hope you enjoyed that performance. In creating the dramatization we reflected on the circumstances of Jesus' confrontation with his detractors and how derisively he was treated. His obscurity and ambiguous birth circumstances would have been subjects of ridicule and derisive laughter. And you may have noted that we did not have Jesus laugh in response. There were several other serious messages in that short play; I hope you will reflect on them. Written versions of the script are available, and I've been told will be passed out to those wanting them after the lecture. Students signed up for this course had better want them [laughter]. The message we will concentrate on next is the value of eye witnesses. So after a brief break we will talk about eye witness. See you all back here in ten.

During the break Anton went to his office which was a short distance down the hallway. He was there but a few minutes calming his nerves when the door opened without a preceding knock. Anton was not surprised by Marge coming in, "Hi Dear, I saw you high up but thought it best not to wave"

"Glad you didn't, there was faculty there....I thought it went well."

"Thanks, Bev was there."

"Yeah...I know...that's why I wouldn't have waved back. I'm sure looking forward to your professional production...I was impressed."

"Thanks again dear....and I won't forget it was your idea to begin with. We have a long haul ahead of us though, but thankfully Bob is pulling strings behind the scenes so to speak. He may be able to get expertise to back me up."

"That's good."

"It's the financing...money is a problem not only with us, but the "big guys" too." There is advertising and promotion, media coverage, auditorium rental, all that kinda stuff."

"Yeah, I bet."

"Last Saturday Winton while looking straight at me said, "I hope we don't have to mortgage our homes" then half laughed."

Marge, still standing, started to shake a little in anxiety. "You didn't tell me that."

"I have trouble with telling still some times, I love you so much I want to shield you....besides it's a matter of subjective interpretation...since then I've come to think Winton was testing my level of commitment. I had looked straight back at him with a smile and nodded my head in agreement. That satisfied him I think because, as I think back, he said nothing more about it."

"I'm committed too Dear...BUT!!"

"Not to worry Marge Darling, this is a together thing and I won't do anything behind your back or without your explicit approval...like signing on...I promise!" Anton gave Marge a big hug of reassurance. Marge responded with a kiss to his cheek.

Anton released Marge and was relieved to see her face was free of anxiety.

"I've got to run back to my job before someone else takes over. Thanks for the reassurance and don't forget to wipe off the lipstick." Marge looked thoughtful and then said, "I have a little secret too!"

"What's that?" A startled Anton asked with eyebrows raised.

"I can't tell you yet, 'cause I promised. But if I fail I will tell you right off. If I don't fail you will know soon enough...I need to protect my true love also"; Marge said with a big smile.

As Marge started to the door Anton said, "See you tonight."

As Marge swirled out the door she said with great effect, "Remember 'tonight's the night.'"

"Thanks for coming" Anton half yelled through the now closed door. He was still perspiring.

### 9. Eye Witnesses

[After the break Anton takes his place before the podium as the audience settles back down. Anton continues his lecture.]

" **I'm** sure you were well aware of the different responses that occurred here in the auditorium to what was being dramatized. It is well known that witnesses differ in recounting what happened during traumatic episodes. Research has shown differences depend on how the brain assembles images and recollections based on prior events in the individual's past. Can't get into that in detail. Also it has been repeatedly observed, in children's games for instance where information is relayed orally how distorted it can quickly become. And yet religious analysts and theoreticians surprisingly cling to the written gospels being a product of oral transmission; "oral traditions" is the popular terminology, over several decades including verbatim quotations. How is that possible I ask? How can the teachings of Jesus recorded in three different accounts be so similar, in some cases nearly identical if they were not recorded by eye witnesses. The "oral tradition" theory defies common experience even granting proficiency in memorization. As much as the scholars may not like to admit in protecting their theories, written notes were being taken, and written records were being made and kept.

Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament only three can be rigorously defended as being eye witness accounts of the teachings and sayings of Jesus in depth. These are the books labeled Matthew, Mark and John. And then that is only true for portions of Matthew and John, and maybe not true for small parts of Mark. The gospel book written by Luke is not a witness by him, but he surveyed Palestine for witnesses both oral and in writing less than twenty years after Jesus' death, and from this research his gospel account emerged.

The early church officials gave evidence in their writings to the importance of eye witnesses and there were many besides the three I mentioned. Paul, for example tells of 500. A colleague of mine asserts with much conviction, that another tax collector named Levi, found in Mark's account, was, like Matthew, an eye witness; taking notes when involved with Jesus' ministry. Peter could well have had access to both notes or compositions based on them when he gave his talks and when he dictated to Mark to record for posterity his recollection of the ministry. Mark could well have bolstered his rendition by transcribing from these witness sources as well. Some how the verbatim quotations were accurately (for that time period) recorded and transmitted as the Gospel of Thomas independently reveals. Some hold that Mary Magdalene, who was most certainly an eye witness, and could have contributed also.

It is interesting to note two features of the New Testament material of a general nature. The first is quite obvious; all four gospels are written in what today is termed third person omnipotent. One would expect if the accounts were really by eye witnesses they would be in the first person as an example: I heard Jesus say....; or this is what I saw Jesus do. In the case of Mark's gospel it is clearly proper for him to have cast it in the third person omnipotent, going so far as to know what Jesus and others are thinking. Obviously this goes beyond being an eye witness in the traditional sense. This editorial content was either imagined or, as some maintain, was a product of divine inspiration. Chapter two in Mark gives an example of this beginning in verse six. "Now some teachers of the Law were there, thinking to themselves, 'Why does this fellow talk like this....but God alone?' Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking....." Here it seems supernatural mind reading is going on. Matthew's accounts seem to be less prone to do this but his account of the episode found in Mark still repeats the mind reading. According to an early church official Matthew's gospel Greek text that we have copies of was translated by scholars at an early time "as best they could" and so the omnipotent third person style could occurred at that point rather than by Matthew himself when transcribing what he heard and saw. Such ruminations must remain pure speculation until more authoritative information is unearthed.

In the "book" labeled Acts of the Apostles, Luke, the writer, at first continues in the third person omnipotent mode of expression and then about midway through reverts to the first person. All subsequent material in the New Testament is written in the first person.

The second feature, which almost parallels the first feature, is the extent to which the teachings of Jesus are presented relative to the overall text. The "book" written by Mathew presents the most extensive record of Jesus' teachings culminating in the Sermon on the Mount. Peter's account recorded in the 'book' of Mark and by Mark contains teaching material mostly in parable form. Luke's material contains some sermon content by Jesus and many more parables than the first two mentioned accounts. The account by John in the "book" by John is obviously centered on the person of Jesus while containing some parable material. The remaining New Testament "books" contain no teaching material by Jesus whatsoever (as quotation). The point is that the importance of Jesus' philosophical teachings diminishes as one proceeds through the New Testament.

That's it for today's lecture; a little shorter than usual...that is your present from me in tune with the Christmas break. See you next year."

Anton left the podium to a brief round of applause.

### 10. The Symposium

**Imagine** yourself in a large auditorium filled to capacity. The auditorium is in one of America's bigger cities. You have an excellent view from your soft cushioned seat in this beautiful, semi-circular auditorium. The seating subtends almost a one-hundred-eighty degree arc. The three thousand seat auditorium is modern, well lit and appointed in a most subdued and artistic manner. Immense red velvet curtains, separated in the center, stretch across the front of the auditorium. In front of the curtains a tiered stage has been installed. On the left side of the stage's upper level is a comfortable couch more than large enough for two people; next to the couch, to the right, in stage center, is a small but elaborate desk with an opulent swivel chair. To the right of the desk is an overstuffed chair. These furniture items have been placed in a shallow arc opposed to the auditorium seating. A podium is located in front of the desk at a lower level. In front of the podium, even lower down, are three daises with simple chairs. The event is being televised so there is plenty of required electronic gear along with the requisite lighting.

At precisely 7:15, there is a slight dimming of the house lights and an anticipatory hush falls over the crowd while electronic specialists emerge to manage their equipment. Suddenly a thunderous applause erupts as a well-known television personality enters between the red velvet curtains and proceeds to the podium.

{The television personality is the chairmen of the event and will be indicated in the text by CHAIRMAN}

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome everyone to this splendid auditorium and to our television viewers around the world! The World Ecumenical Biblical Research Council is pleased to present a three-day symposium on a chronological harmony of the gospels from the Biblical New Testament. The chronological harmony centers on Jesus' ministry which is the focus of the gospels. The work by council members on this project has attracted considerable attention throughout the religious community and this has spread to the secular community as well. So well received has been this effort that the council has decided it merits presentation to a world-wide audience.

A comprehensive presentation of a New Testament harmonization requires several hours and for this reason the symposium is a weekend long event beginning with this evening's presentation. Sessions will continue tomorrow and conclude Sunday afternoon. Out of town attendees are especially welcomed and the council has made every effort to make their stay a pleasant one. Judging from this overflowing auditorium, interest in the New Testament is not on the wane and, hopefully, is indicative of a large television audience. For most places in the world, a time delay re-broadcast will be available at prime time in the evening.

Before I forget, my name is Robin, I have to give my name for the few of you who may be a bit TV challenged [audience laughter]. I am honored to have been selected chairman of the symposium. As chairman it is my job to pave the way so to speak for the harmonized New Testament presentation to follow. While the presentation focus will be on the teachings of Jesus, the New Testament accounts also give information on his ministry in general and the circumstances surrounding his ministry. Unless one has engaged in a study of how times were back two thousand years ago, it may be difficult for us to imagine what it was like when Jesus walked the roads of Palestine. Most of us are less than well informed on New Testament circumstances than we could be...that certainly was true for me. Getting up to speed for the symposium was an eye opening experience in itself. I would like to share briefly some of what I have learned in the way of background so we can appreciate what the New Testament reveals. So before we get into the eye witness presentation to follow, let us briefly orient ourselves to the situation in which Jesus found himself...let us consider the cultural, historical, political, and geographical aspects. Of these aspects, the easiest to understand is the geographic, although since these aspects are interwoven such a separation is somewhat arbitrary.

[A large projection screen is lowered in front of the curtains and beautiful scenes are displayed which follow the chairman's dialogue. The first scene is a picture of the small scale representation of Jerusalem as it appeared at the time of Jesus' ministry.]

Much of Jesus' ministry centered on Jerusalem especially towards the end of his life. The city was dominated by the architecturally magnificent third temple on the plaza depicted on the screen behind me as it is thought to have been some two thousand years ago. Temple construction was started by Herod the Great several decades before Jesus' time. Because of the 'Pax Romana', Jesus could travel over the entire Roman Empire. However the New Testament accounts limit his travel to a territory large by standards of his day but small by present standards...roughly the size of the state New Jersey. .the whole area is accessible in a matter of hours by automobile. While much has changed, there are still some aspects which remain relatively unchanged, even today.

[a map of Palestine of that time period is displayed alternatively with representative scenic views; a laser pointer, remotely controlled, follows the Chairman's dialog.].

Roughly 110 miles North of Jerusalem lies the Sea of Galilee (actually a moderately sized fresh water lake, not a "sea") in a below sea-level basin surrounded by mountainous terrain. The Sea of Galilee is surrounded by high mountains and it sometimes becomes dangerously stormy when cold winds come down off the mountains nearby. The stormy waters are unusually severe for the size of the lake hence its appellate "sea" rather than lake. Fishermen could face life threatening situations on this lake if they became overwhelmed in such a sudden storm. Today one can visit the Sea of Galilee which figured so prominently in Jesus' ministry, tour around it, and feel, one way or another, something of Jesus' time so little change has occurred in two thousand years. Recently a fishing boat from that era was discovered and unearthed from the lakebed. Likely to be of Jesus' time, this dingy sized wooden boat with a crude sail is thought to be of the type used by Jesus and the apostles. On the North rim of the Sea of Galilee are the ruins of Capernaum, then a commercial city, thought to be right at lake's edge at that time before centuries of silting from the nearby river left it in-land. Capernaum had good housing, and the adult Jesus lived there for a time. A few miles east lay Bethsaida—then a decrepit fishing village located there because of the good fishing due to warm under water springs. To the east of Bethsaida and further inland was the mostly desolate region known as the Decapolis. The people there were concentrated in Hellenistic cities and it is in this region that Jesus miraculously fed the multitudes in the wilderness surrounding the cities. Counter clockwise around the lake, about midway down on the Western shore is Tiberius. North of Tiberius was the shanty fishing village called Magadan. Today, nothing of the original remains in Magadan or Bethsaida.

About 50 miles North-Northeast of the Sea of Galilee is Mount Hermon at a little over 10,000 feet in elevation and snow-capped much of the year—a dramatic setting for this greenish blue gem of water that the Galilee Sea is. Water vapor captured by Mt. Hermon produces the Jordan River which supplies the lake. The Jordan River continues on South to the Dead Sea near Jerusalem—the lowest point on the face of the earth. This is one of the most dramatic changes in elevation in the world in such a short distance. Both villages, such as Nazareth where Jesus lived as a child, and cities mentioned in the New Testament can be visited. In some cases only ruins exist.

The climate in Palestine was not the typical 'Mediterranean' one, but more arid and occasionally beset by severe drought. In the highlands, like around Jerusalem, temperatures were more extreme. Then as now, in winter during the rainy season, nights were cold and humans and non-furred livestock required shelter....in those times the less fortunate sought shelter in the numerous caves found in the region. The Gospel accounts mention these and other geographical and climatic features giving a sense of realism.

With the exception of the "triumphal entry", as best we know, Jesus traveled by foot from Sidon in the North to Hebron in the South and from the shore of the Mediterranean Sea to as far East as the ten towns of the Decapolis. The roads in Palestine were well developed in Jesus' day having been used as trade routes for centuries. With the Roman conquest of the land, many were paved with stones by slave laborers. Travel on the backs of animals was common of course, for the better off that is. The very rich could afford litter bearers or even the less comfortable wheeled vehicles.

Just a generation before Jesus, the Jews regained a sense of national sovereignty under a talented negotiator and brutal military strategist, the client King, Herod the Great. By demonstrating loyalty to the empire via fiercely fighting opponents, and thereby gaining Roman backing, he had conquered a geographic area about as large as that, a previous millennia before, King David and his son Solomon had ruled.....historical highlights for Jewish nationalism. But this conquest was reduced in size by the Romans upon Herod's death when three of his sons inherited control.

[A slide of the Palestine political divisions at the time of Jesus is shown.]

One son, Archelaus, was inept and Caesar Augustus, then the Roman dictator, had him exiled and direct Roman rule of the Southern portion took place under a potentate. At the time of Jesus' ministry the potentate was Pontius Pilate. Of the two surviving ruling sons, the most notable was Herod Antipas. His domain was mostly around the Sea of Galilee and Perea to the South-East. He made his headquarters at Tiberius. The other, more benign son, Herod Phillip, had his domain north of the Sea of Galilee. His headquarters were at Panius which he re-named Caesar Philippi. By obviously courting emperor favor, both men remained in power, but as tetrarchs not kings as their father was. At the time of Jesus, the Roman emperor/dictator was one Tiberius Caesar, succeeding Caesar Augustus who had the Roman Senate provide him with God-like attributes so that emperor worship was encouraged throughout the empire with exception of the sensitive Jews. Tiberius himself refused god-like worship deflecting it back to his predecessor. However, his evil actions, power motivated, more than compensated for this good quality. The names of politically important people are also found in the New Testament.

Mentioned previously, the city Tiberius was established by Herod Antipas to honor Tiberius Caesar his patron master. Here Herod Antipas, as tetrarch of Galilee (but fond of considering himself a king), made his residence and capital. Tiberius had a large Roman garrison within the city to keep law and order against Zealot Jewish terrorists of that time. The garrison had a good sized contingent of Roman soldiers and mercenaries of Germanic descent. Antipas made the city very Hellenistic and because of this and other factors, pious Jews were very reluctant to enter the city. Of the sons, Antipas features most prominently in the scriptures being ever watchful of both Jesus' and John the Baptist's activities which were happening mostly in his territories. He was afraid of revolt against his power and that of the Roman rulers. With the death of Herod the Great, the Romans, without Herod's aggressive stance against the zealots, lost control of much of southern Palestine. There seems to be no evidence that Pontius Pilate could travel peacefully to Jericho, Masada, or Herodium, places frequented by Herod the Great where he had constructed impressive palaces. Even a visit to Jerusalem by Pilate required a contingent of Roman troops and Pilate transferred his power base from Jerusalem, which Herod the Great had made his capital, to Caesarea on the coast. Ironically, Herod, as client king, had founded Caesarea as a way of honoring his masters.

Roman rule was heavy handed and the Jews in Palestine were among the most troublesome to rule. Throughout the empire taxation was a fierce-some burden; especially during the Herodian period when financing the impressive building projects was a priority, like the temple. The indigent population was gradually becoming marginalized and disinherited from their land, especially the Jews. At first, the Roman rulers in Palestine, to ease occupational difficulties, looked the other way when it came to religious activity since interference with it was a sore spot with the fervent Jews. While extensive literature is available on these matters outside of the gospel accounts, secular history presents almost nothing of Jesus' ministry so obscure was it relative to the political intrigues within the Roman Empire. And of course the ruling Jewish hierarch would have been especially motivated to keep quiet any threat to their power base, as the New Testament itself testifies.

The extensive and complex history leading up to Jesus' ministry available in literature today is more than enough to occupy the interest of another weekend symposium. Perhaps with sufficient motivation, the council would consider such a symposium since Jesus' teachings and the philosophy behind them did not develop in a vacuum. Recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the "readings" of the early twentieth century "seer", Edgar Cayce, corroborated by the secular historian, Josephus, provide insights into this particular history. Such history, while important to the study of Jesus' life, cannot be considered in this symposium since our focus is on Jesus' teachings. Nonetheless, because of these sources, I can give you a few cultural details helpful to understanding Jesus' activities described in the New Testament accounts featured in this symposium.

Previous empirical invasions had dispersed generations of Jews so that there were, even at that time, more Jews living away from Palestine than in it. If one includes the Samaritans in with expatriated foreigners, then the Jews were a minority even in Palestine. Three major political/religious divisions are known to have existed among the Jews at that time...the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. In Palestine the Pharisees and the Sadducees comprised the ruling class embodied in the Sanhedrin and the temple priesthood. Members of the Sanhedrin, besides the Chief Priest(s), included the wealthy Nicodemus and the even wealthier Zebedee, the father of the Apostle John. The Essenes were looked down on, despised and even persecuted by the ruling class whenever they had a chance. It is believed that the Zealots, if not Essenes themselves, protected the Essenes whenever possible. Further, the council believes large Essene communities existed throughout the Roman Empire and possibly beyond. This would explain the dynamic eruption of Jesus' followers throughout the Roman Empire by members of the "Way" after the Resurrection. Members of the Way could have existed in the Samaritan population as well.

As most of us have been taught since childhood, Jesus was born into the looked down on, humble class. What is not so widely known is that his family, his friends, and followers, as well as friends of the family, belonged to the Essene community of faith. But as Jesus traveled as part of his formal education under the Essene community auspices and matured, he began to distance himself from the legalistic dogma of the Essene faith. Mary Magdalene, Mary's sister, Martha, and brother, Lazarus, were part of the extended family of Jesus which can be inferred from the fact that Jesus was a fairly frequent visitor at the elegant home of Martha and Lazarus and that they were close friends. The Bible is silent on the exact nature of these Essene relationships and for that matter Essenes are not even mentioned in the Bible. A possible reason for this silence is the persecution factor; the Essene followers of Jesus (later labeled Christians by Pagans) were vigorously persecuted as described in Acts. Names and family details had to be minimized to avoid identification. This was especially true of high profile people like Nicodemus and Zebedee who tried to keep their Essene affiliations secret.

It has only been in recent times, since translations were made, that the existence of the Essenes has been made more widely known through the translated writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, born only some decades after Jesus. Although he himself claimed to be an Essene for a short period of his life, Josephus mentions them only in passing. He also gives a very brief mention of Jesus' existence but does not link the two. Such a linkage would remain speculative were it not for the controversial "readings" given by the seer, Edgar Cayce. Recently archeologists have identified the Essene quarter of old Jerusalem and the Essene gate in the South-Western portion of the surrounding ancient wall. Because of these and other secular findings, the 'historicity' of Jesus and the Essenes is no longer doubted by competent historians.

This concludes our brief introductory remarks. They hardly do justice to the large amount of topographical, historical, and political knowledge available in books to those interested in greater detail. Archeological evidence substantiates much of the factual features of the New Testament and the Bible in general. The thrust of the symposium is not these topics nor the personalities involved. Instead, the focus is on the teachings of Jesus. It is an often ignored point in Jesus studies that the New Testament tells us very little about the person of Jesus...nothing is said of his physical appearance, his personality, mannerisms, talents and the like. Although some emotions such as sadness, anger, and frustration are evidenced, there is no mention of his being happy, humorous or if he ever laughed. The council concludes from this the old saw is appropriate: it is the message that is important not the messenger. In this case it is the teachings of Jesus that is more important than the person of Jesus even if, as some maintain, he was the most important man the world will ever see. Therefore it is the council's primary intent to convey, as best they can, what Jesus' teachings were about.

Through the wonders of electronics, the world-wide television viewers will be able to hear the presentation about to be given in their own cultural language. In a way, this is a staging of the Pentecost scene in the Bible where the apostles were miraculously heard in languages appropriate to those within hearing distance and who were present in Jerusalem from many regions in the Roman Empire at that time—two thousand years ago. Today we have to reproduce that miracle electronically but the effect will be the same; this time on a world wide basis. While here in the auditorium the presentation will be in English, headsets are available for those desiring to hear it in their native tongue as explained in the program guide. Ushers will help those who may not have been aware of this opportunity. Please raise your hand now and an usher will assist you.

The council has decided to make the presentation using an unusual format for which we ask an indulgence on the part of our audience. While the miracle of electronics enables us to do remarkable things like real time language translation, there are still things that cannot be done with current technology. And so we would like each of you to pretend that through some electronic marvel we have brought back to our lifetime three apostle eye witnesses from two thousand years ago....the three apostles of Jesus who the council supposes were responsible for the gospel accounts we have in the Bible and who will be represented here by real people. They will dramatize this series by reading their appropriate Biblical texts. The three are the Apostle Matthew, the Apostle Peter, and the Apostle John. To help create the illusion, three actors well known for their speaking ability will represent these three apostles and will be dressed appropriately as if the apostles were translated before us unaffected by the passage of time and speaking to us "in tongues". Although this is not a theater in the round performance as some would like, it is our intent to create an atmosphere of semi-realism by having these distinguished actors appear as those disciples of Jesus who were instrumental in first proclaiming the gospels and, as the council postulates, were responsible for the gospel written witness as well. The effect will be most dramatic for our television viewers. To this end, the telecast is presented free of commercial interruption.

For those unfamiliar with the council's work, a new view of Jesus' lifespan has been developed which permits a better and more unified exposition of his ministry. It is this unification, sometimes referred to in the past as a harmonization, which is being presented. Further, the three gospels...commonly known as Matthew, Mark and John, have been edited and chronologically modified so that they can be presented as first person eye witness accounts rather than the impersonal sense found in the Bible; that is, the omnipotent view as professional writers term it. The desire is to have an easily comprehended, less confusing, non-contradictory, and non-redundant transmission of Jesus' teaching. This form of presentation is not meant to disparage the New Testament books as they are written...they are the best we currently possess and we are most fortunate to have them. Without them this presentation would not be possible. Again, the purpose here is to elucidate the teachings in a more easily assimilated manner and to unravel the confused chronology as the gospels have it. As I said, the council believes Matthew, John and Peter were responsible for the three gospels accounts we will consider. The council also believes, without much substantiating evidence, that all three witnesses had Aramaic as their native tongues and so the presentation of their eyewitness accounts will be translated into English from that perspective, not necessarily from the Greek in which the gospel texts are written. The distinction will become evident as the presentation progresses. While they were most certainly eye witnesses, Matthew, Peter and John were not necessarily the writers of the complete traditional gospel books as we have them in the Bible. In the case of Mark's gospel this would seem most certainly true.

In keeping with the Council's perspective that the words from Jesus which we have in the New Testament are of paramount importance, we have elected not to devote attention here to the biographies of the eye witnesses, as limited as they are, however bios of the three are to be found in your programs and viewers can order them through information to be provided at program's end.

So now, without further ado, as they say, let me introduce to you the three actors chosen to represent the narrative staging of the eye witness accounts. Our first representative, in order of appearance, playing the part of the Apostle John, is Benjamin Sage well known in local theatrical circles for playing biblical roles...Benjamin!"

[Benjamin Sage emerges from behind the parted curtain to an enthusiastic round of applause and takes his place on the rightmost dais. He is dressed as a first century business man, which in Palestine would be a mixture of native and Roman garb. Unlike the less wealthy, his feet are enclosed in a shoe like sheepskin covering indicative of the wealthy who can afford such luxuries, and of course gives the wearer protection from the dust, dirt and sometimes filth of the urban streets at that time which the common sandals would not. They are held up with leather lacing which attach to a waist girdle which also has pockets for spending money for buying and trading. Under the girdle is a traditional Jewish under garment and over that a white toga like cloth which does not completely hide the girdle. On his head he wears a small unobtrusive beanie with a silver ring like clasp holding it place.]

{His speaking part will be indicated in the text by **APOSTLE JOHN** }

CHAIRMAN:

I have been told to comment on the beanie that Benjamin has on his head. In fact this head apparel is interesting in itself. For those of you not in the know, what I'm calling a beanie is actually called a "kippa" by English speaking Jews who wear variations of it depending on their particular religious orientation. It is thought that its origin goes back centuries perhaps as far back as when the Torah came into existence; some time after the destruction of Jerusalem. If that is true, then it is an old tradition; but we Christians cling to traditions older than that. Now according to our costuming division, the special embroidered kippa with its small silver clasp on Benjamin's head was worn in BC days by those Essenes brave enough to do so. We have some doubt about the authenticity of their claim, but the council was so enamored with the idea that they gave their o.k. anyway [audience laughter].

Our next actor, Michael Goldman, portrays the Apostle Matthew. Mr. Goldman is well known for his supporting roles and tutoring...Michael!

[Michael Goldman emerges from behind the parted curtain to an enthusiastic round of applause and takes his place on the center dais (which is actually somewhat off-center to the left). He is dressed as a first century low rank Roman civil servant although his physical appearance belies his Jewish origins. His prominently medaled outer garment resembles a Roman toga and he also has on the "kippa".]

{Michael's speaking part will be indicated in the text by **APOSTLE MATTHEW** }

CHAIRMAN:

Michael maintains that his authentic Jewish origins had nothing to do with his selection for the actor role....some doubt lingers [audience laughter]. Finally, the speaking part of the Apostle Peter will be played by Jonathan Swartzhaven...Jonathan!

[Jonathan Swartzhaven emerges from behind the parted curtain to an enthusiastic round of applause and takes his place on the left dais. He is costumed as a commercial fisherman of that era with an unkempt beard and lowly Palestinian garb. Coincidentally, Jonathan is a rugged outdoor enthusiast and so physically fits the role admirably. Peter, who, although an Essene, disdains to wear the beanie.]

{In the text his narrative part will be indicated by **APOSTLE PETER** }

CHAIRMAN:

Jonathan is well suited for his "'Peter" role since he is a talented university drama student as well as a rugged outdoor enthusiast. Next, I wish to introduce three prominent members from the World Ecumenical Biblical Research Council who will provide comment on the New Testament narrative. This additional commentary will give more perspective and background information, not only on the biblical text, but also on the factors considered in the production of the synthesized gospel harmonization being presented here tonight. Can these three commentators please step front and center!

[The chairman turns around to greet the commentators. Three men in business suits emerge from behind the parted curtain to an enthusiastic round of applause and take their places in front of the furniture on the stage. At the same time the chairman takes his place behind the desk and turns to face the audience while remaining standing.]

CHAIRMAN:

Standing in front of the chair to my left I am pleased to present the chairman of the council and one of the council's founders, Doctor Anton Frenkel. In addition to his place as head of the council, Doctor Frenkel, a respected local professor of philosophy, has recently received the honorary chair at the Manchester Theological Institute in St. James and is now the lead philosophical Consultant at the Literary Biblical Review Translation Society. Dr. Frenkel will comment on, and give background principally on the Gospel of John.

Standing to my immediate right, is Robert Stenpnizer, professor of New Testament theology and co-founder of the council. Professor Stenpnizer frequently chairs the prestigious Knight Table of Linguistic studies at Be'Lial Institute for Religious Studies in Haifa. He is a well known author of several books on translational difficulties in mid-eastern script, several of which have received notable awards. Professor Stenpnizer will comment on, and give background principally on the Gospel of Matthew.

To my far right is Professor Joseph Agaister who has the honor of commenting on the Gospel of Mark which, the council believes, presents the eye witness of the Apostle Peter. Joseph is a professor of religious studies at Tolane University, where we met some decades ago and has been a close friend of mine ever since...;let us welcome these commentators with a good round of applause.

[The audience responds with a sustained greeting of applause initiated by the chairman who takes his seat in the chair behind the desk.]

{In the text the commentators will be indicated respectively by

PROF. FRENKEL, PROF. STENPNIZER, and PROF. AGAISTER.}

[The spotlight narrows and focuses in on the chairman as the house lights dim completely.]

CHAIRMAN:

Gentlemen please be seated we are about to begin. As chairman it is my role to be the moderator-coordinator for the session in addition to the overview introduction I just made. While much of the presentation has been scripted, allowance has been made for the development of spontaneous exchange of ideas between the three commentators; there has been a minimal amount of rehearsal by the commentators. However, I must point out it is possible that no such exchange will take place since it has not been scripted. On the other hand, it is also my duty to make sure none of the commentators hogs the show with non-ending off the cuff remarks as I have been known to do; ha, ha, ha." [the audience joins in with laughter and mild applause].

First, a comment on the stage setting itself...there are symbolic elements to it. As you can see two council commentators are sitting on the couch and the third separately off in the chair to my left. While my desk, the couch and chair setting can be taken as a take-off on popular TV talk shows, there is additional meaning; the reason for the separation of council members is to remind everyone of the gospel separation found in the New Testament. Three of the gospel books, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are termed 'synoptic' because they basically tell the same account of Jesus' ministry in roughly the same language and sequence. Thus we have professors Stenpnizer and Agaister seated together on the couch where they will be commenting on Matthew and Mark. On the other hand, the gospel of John is recognized as an independent account and so Professor Frenkel has been seated off by himself. The daises have similarly been set up asymmetrically.

[Small 'Matthew', 'Mark' and 'John' signs have been placed at the feet of council members to aid in identification. Similarly, the signs 'Matthew', 'Peter', and 'John' have been placed at the base of appropriate daises. Behind and above the furniture are the names of the participating council members.]

And now it is my pleasure to turn the spotlight over to Professor Frenkel, the chairman of the council, who will introduce the session.

[Professor Frenkel proceeds to the podium and there is moderate audience applause.]

PROF. FRENKEL:

Thank you Robin and welcome everyone to our symposium. As some of you know the council has formulated a new approach to presenting the ministry of Jesus. It is our hope that this new approach will stimulate renewed interest in the teachings of Jesus which, in our opinion, while reaching an ever widening audience through Biblical distribution, is being evermore ignored at the same time. Much of this ignorance we believe is, in fact, due to the way the professional Christian community has presented the teachings of Jesus going as far back as the preaching of Paul shortly after Jesus' death. There has been a more recent decline of interest due to cultural disparagement by religious professionals based on revisionist thinking, which in turn, is due in part to intellectual advancement of human scientific understanding, particularly in the last three centuries. It is our intent to challenge this disparagement, un-provable as it is, with our own more positive speculation on the development of the gospel accounts found in the New Testament portion of the Bible. That is the focus of the symposium presentation.

As Robin mentioned, the council has developed a different time line for Jesus' ministry through which has come about a different harmonization of the events found in the four gospel accounts in the New Testament. One of the four, the gospel of Luke, has not been deemed a first person account by us, even though it appears to be chronicling first person accounts by others. We are even less sure who the eye witnesses are in Luke's gospel, than we are of Matthew, Peter and John, especially when the accounts in Luke are not found in the other three gospels. Therefore, the overall text of Luke is not being presented as an eye witness account in the symposium. Nonetheless, Luke's gospel has valuable time marks for inclusion in the harmonization; and a few other exceptions have been made as well. There will not be time in this presentation to consider the factors that went into the council's thinking regarding Jesus' time line or the exclusion of Luke's gospel. However, I would like to emphasize it is, with the help of Luke's gospel, that we have been able to rearrange the sequence of events in all three of the other gospel accounts, splicing them into a chronological order which produces, in effect, a composite gospel without redundant passages. This is different from the traditional parallel presentations of the gospels, a number of which have been produced in recent times, where similar passages are placed side by side. These "harmonizations", and there have been many, typically incorporate the three so called "synoptic gospels"—Matthew, Mark and Luke while some harmonizations have John additionally but subordinately.

While the council makes the claim that our harmonization is new, overall this not true since linearization of the gospels to present a single representation of Jesus' life have been many. In fact the first attempt is thought to have been done by Tatian in the second century AD. Unfortunately, this work, entitled "Diatessaron" is no longer extant. The council's claim to fame is the use of eye witness material and not the complete gospel and, of course, the extended time line for Jesus' life.

And so we begin the symposia by setting the time frame for our diatessaron through a quoting of a remarkable time stamp from Luke's gospel....found in Luke chapter 3; verse 23. Unfortunately, Luke does not divulge the source of this historic information which we take to be by an eye witness. In Luke 3:23 one reads: _"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry."_ Incidentally, this age of thirty is in agreement with ancient Jewish custom where men come of age professionally at age thirty.

According to the councils chronological strategy of Jesus' life, his being about thirty years of age corresponds to about twenty-two AD in our Gregorian calendar if we back extrapolate some two thousand years. If one does some time calculations, one finds we have Jesus' birth occurring early in the first decade BC. Fairly recently, historians have been pushing the birth date earlier and earlier but not quite as early as we have it. Our speculative birth date yields the age of Jesus at his death as being forty years; a prominent number in the Bible and one of the factors considered in our speculation. This age for Jesus at his death is considerably at odds with the traditional view.

We further speculate that at the age of thirty, Jesus considers himself prepared to start to become what was called a hundred years ago or more, a "roving" or "itinerant" preacher. We on the council, conceive Jesus traveling alone, going from village to village, talking mostly to fellow Essenes; perhaps being invited to discussions in their homes or perhaps even in the Essene synagogues found in the larger Northern Palestine villages. We also speculate that his cousin John at about the same time did a similar thing; perhaps leaving the Qumran community as others have speculated, to begin his solo roving ministry but in the Jordan River valley instead of the Lake Galilee region where Jesus was touring. Perhaps it was when John the Baptist reached the upper reaches of the Jordan River, just south of the Sea of Galilee, that he and Jesus became aware of each other's activities and the two met. Even though the two men were related, it had been so many years, even if they had known of each other ten or twenty years before, that one did not recognize the other right off, especially with John's wild appearance; or perhaps John was unaware of Jesus' predicted role as the expected messiah. At any rate, John's gospel gives the impression that Jesus was recognized as the messiah by John the Baptist only recently and even then through some sort of vision. And so it is that we, based on such a scenario, have placed first in the presentation, the Apostle John's eye witness of the meeting between Jesus and John the Baptist. The Apostle John's account also clearly suggests to us that many of Jesus closest apostles were first disciples of John the Baptist. This would include those associated with fishing operation, John, James, Peter, and Andrew and perhaps non-fisher folk like Phillip; and others who were to become, perhaps, only just disciples of Jesus, like Nathaniel, and were never chosen as apostles.

[Professor Frenkel returns to his chair.]

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Anton. So let's now have the Apostle John's account read by Benjamin As you indicate, Anton, we think this happened after Jesus had come in contact with John the Baptist's group in the upper Jordan valley in or about the year 22AD. The reading is taken from the Gospel of John, Chapter 1 verse 19 through Chapter 2 verse 11(5).

[The spotlight fades and then re-focuses on Benjamin Sage, representing the Apostle John, as he approaches the podium.]

APOSTLE JOHN:

_This was the Baptist's testimony_ [that I heard] _when the Jewish leaders sent Priests and Temple assistants_ [Levites] _from Jerusalem to ask John_ [the Baptist] _if he claimed to be the messiah. He flatly denied it. "I am not the messiah," he said. "Well then, who are you?" they asked. "Are you Elijah?" "No," he replied. "Are you a prophet?" "No." he answered. "Then who are you? Tell us, so we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you have to say about yourself?" John replied in the words of the prophet Isaiah: "I am a voice of one crying out in the wilderness, 'Prepare a straight pathway for the Lord-God!'" Then those who were sent by the Pharisees asked him, "If you aren't the messiah or Elijah or another prophet, why do you have to baptize?" John told them, "I baptize with water, but right here in the crowd is someone you do not know, the one coming after me. I am not worthy to loosen the lace of his sandal." These incidents took place at some springs where John was baptizing, near Bethany located on the other side of the Jordan River._

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look! There is the Lamb of God, the one who lifts up the sin of the world! He is the one I was talking about when I said, "Soon a man is coming who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before I did. I didn't know he was the one, but I have been baptizing with water in order to point him out to Israel." Then John bore further witness, "I saw the spirit descending like a dove from heaven and it remained upon him. I didn't know he was the one, but the one having sent me to baptize with water, told me, 'Whoever you see the spirit descending and remaining upon, he is the one baptizing in Holy Spirit.' I saw this happen and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God."

_The following day, John_ [the Baptist] _was standing with two of his disciples_ [namely me and my friend Andrew] _. As Jesus walked by, John looked at him and then declared, "Look! There is the lamb of God!" Then_ [we] _two disciples turned and followed Jesus. Jesus looked around and saw_ [us] _following. **"What are you looking for?"** he asked_ [us] _._ [I] _replied, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" **"Come and see,"** he said. It was about the tenth hour_ [ten in the morning –Roman time] _when_ [we] _went with him to the place where he was staying, and_ [we] _remained with him there the rest of the day._

_Andrew had a brother named Simon_ [who also was a disciple of John the Baptist] _. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother, Simon, and tell him, "We have found the messiah". Then Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus. Looking intently at Simon, Jesus said, **"You are Simon, the son of**_ [Jonah] _ **, but you will be called Cephas"** (which is translated Peter_ [rock] _)._

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, **"Come, be my follower."** Philip was from Bethsaida, Andrew and Peter's hometown. Philip went off to look for Nathanael and told him, "We have found the very person Moses wrote about in the Law and the Prophets. His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth." "Nazareth!" exclaimed Nathanael. "Can anything good come from there?" "Just come and see for yourself," Philip said. As they approached, Jesus said, **"Here is a true son of Israel in whom there is no deceit."** Nathanael asked, "How do you know about me?" And Jesus replied, **"I could see you under the fig tree before Philip found you."** Nathanael replied, "Teacher, you are the Son of God — the King of Israel!" Jesus asked him, **"Do you believe all this just because I told you I had seen you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this."** Then he said, **"Truly, truly I say you will see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."**

_On the third day, a wedding celebration took place in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus, was there. Jesus and his disciples_ [new followers like me] _were also invited to the celebration. The wine supply became very low during the festivities, so Mary spoke to him about the problem. "They have no more wine." But Jesus said to her, **"What has that to do with me and you, woman? My hour has not yet come."** But his mother told the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Six_ [large] _stone water jars were standing there which were used for Jewish ceremonial purposes and each held two or three liquid measures_ [about twelve gallons] _each. Jesus told the servants **"Fill the jars with water."** When the jars had been filled to the brim, he said, **"Dip some out and take it to the master of ceremonies."** So they followed his instructions. When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over. "Usually a host serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone is full and too intoxicated to care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!" This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was Jesus' first display of his_ [supernatural] _magnificence. And_ [I and all of the other] _disciples believed in him. After the wedding Jesus went to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and_ [I and the rest of the new disciples]. _We all spent a few days there, and then left._

[Spotlights are directed on the commentators who remain seated, and Benjamin returns to his dais.]

PROF. FRENKEL:

This first miracle account in John's gospel has a few controversial elements to it, particularly that part where Jesus claims his hour hasn't yet come and then proceeds to do a miracle. Although this is not considered one of those so called "hard sayings" of Jesus that scholars have argued over since time immemorial, this particular saying is certainly enigmatic enough. The fact that some verse by verse commentators skip over it attests to that. First of all, it should be noted that this is the only instance in all of the New Testament that the phrase 'my hour' occurs. The possibility of it being a scribal insertion to explain away the preceding phrase 'What has that to do with me and you' cannot be discounted. We have decided to leave the text as it is but with this discourse I am giving and leave the matter for future discussion and evaluation. I believe a better explanation for Jesus' response to Mary's request than 'my hour has not yet come' is that Jesus was determined not to have his powers exploited for solely materialistic purposes (some other commentators assert this as well)....we will encounter Jesus' philosophy in this direction again later in our presentation. On the other hand there does not appear to be a spiritual analogy as there is for Jesus' other miracles. If there is, other commentators have missed it as well. Perhaps Jesus changed his mind after his rebuke and decided to help Mary out as an act of kindness and to test his powers at the same time.

[Another spotlight now highlights Prof. Stenpnizer.]

PROF. STENPNIZER:

I also would throw in a comment on Anton's observation that at least some of John the Baptist's disciples were to become followers of Jesus....I would like to add Levi in with Nathanael and Philip just because I like him [laughter]. Well that of course isn't true since I've never met Levi but it is my suspicion that he wasn't Matthew by another name as others will have it, but instead was a back-up biographer when Matthew couldn't be around for whatever reason...and maybe he was the source for much of Luke's material like the opening Luke quotation that Anton cited. I would also like to point out that in this scenario John (the apostle-to-be), seems to be aware of Jesus' background, calling him Rabbi meaning teacher as did Nathanial later. Also I want to point out that in the "second day" of the account just read Jesus seems to be predicting his baptismal scenario for his disciples; which John's gospel does not record; perhaps because John himself was not there for the baptism.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Well Bob, I think you are going to take a lot of flak over that Levi theory of yours.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

I suppose...but to me it seems a reasonable speculation that it was from Levi that Luke got some of what seems like eye witness material that the other eye witness accounts don't have.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Getting back to the script here.....there is another feature of the text I wish to discuss and that is Jesus' relationship to family. Throughout the New Testament we read Mary being called Jesus' mother and Mary and Joseph's children being referred to as his brothers and sisters. We will encounter later Jesus denying such family relations. In the text just read, Jesus calls Mary "woman" not mother or other such familial word. He did not use "woman" as an indication of disrespect but rather, we think, that she was a birth-mother and not his real mother in a genetic sense. In our opinion, this is an important difference in viewpoint. In our contemporary society the word "birth-mother" has a special meaning due to recent technological advancements wherein a woman can give birth to a child conceived by others or even conceived in a non-human environment....something incomprehensible two thousand years ago, but taken for granted today. The concept of birth-mother, then, fits nicely with Jesus' choice of wording and with the concepts of a supernatural conception and virgin birth. Also, even today we do not have suitable terminology for sibling relationship in such an artificial situation...step brother or step sister don't hack it for accuracy. Translators and commentators until recently had little choice but to use the word mother; even though, in every instance we have in the Bible, Jesus addressed Mary as "woman". Since the people speaking in the texts, other than Jesus, also had no choice, we have left the wording woman, mother, brother and sister unchanged. I also wish to note that in some portions of the New Testament Joseph is even referred to as Jesus' father which the text authors wouldn't have done if they truly believed in the "virgin birth" miracle.

PROF. AGAISTER:

I would like to note another metaphysical statement, this one made by John the Baptist, where he states Jesus existed before him. According to Luke's gospel, (from the research Luke made), John the Baptist was born six months before Jesus. This is one of the several statements in the New Testament alluding to the principle of reincarnation or, in this particular instance, the pre-existence of a "Jesus entity".

[A spotlight shifts from Stenpnizer to Frenkel.]

PROF. FRENKEL:

Well Joe, controversial metaphysical considerations aside, there are even geographical aspects subject to debate. For instance, as far as we know at this time, the Bethany mentioned in John's account is no longer in existence. Some authorities place it some twelve miles south of the Sea of Galilee, well north of the Bethany near Jerusalem and "on the other side of the Jordan" river as John's gospel states. It is this segment of John's eye witness account which causes the Council to chronicle the events the way we have. We also note that this reading is the first, according to our chronological sequencing, that gives mention of Capernaum where Jesus would eventually settle. Cana as you see is not too far from Nazareth and both are west of the Sea of Galilee and Capernaum.

[The laser pointer highlights the wilderness, then Galilee to the north, and then Cana. Both spotlights now cut out and another turns onto Anton Frenkel.]

The gospel accounts do not give a clear indication where Jesus was living in this time period. From what was just read one could guess Jesus was perhaps temporarily renting a place in Bethany; he was at least "staying" there. It is also possible he was staying with an Essence family. Prior to that it would seem he was living in Nazareth, presumably at the family compound. At the end of what was just read it seems he only visited Capernaum. It was only after Jesus was baptized and John the Baptist arrested that we are told that Jesus took up residence in Capernaum. As I mentioned previously, it seems to us that Jesus was a roving minister in this time period without a permanent place to stay. One reads in Matthew chapter eight, verse twenty: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head".

CHAIRMAN:

The producer has signaled me that I am to cut short Professor Frenkel as much as I admire him. According to my script I am tell you that the council believes the next portion of John's account which one finds in the Bible really takes place a few years after what has just been read. Instead, during the interim, Jesus is thought to continue his speaking tour of the Galilee region gathering a few more followers one of which is Matthew who starts to record some of Jesus' speeches, perhaps following Jesus' instruction to do so. At any rate we now switch gears so to speak, leave John's account and take up Matthew's eye witness account of Jesus' early ministry. Robert Stenpnizer take it away!

[Professor Stenpnizer now enjoys the spotlight and gives a beaming smile.]

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Since Matthew was not mentioned in John's account which was just read by Benjamin, we, the council, believe that while Matthew was among the very first of the followers of Jesus and they might have met when Matthew was possibly a disciple of John the Baptist but more likely following the episode Benjamin just read. According to this speculation, the meeting occurred as Jesus continued his early ministry in the Galilee region following the wine miracle but before his baptism. To conform to this speculation we must re-arrange the sequence found in Matthew's gospel. While the council feels some reluctance to do so, the evidence of editorial additions and changes by unknown others in the gospel of Matthew makes such changes of ours defensible. In our sequencing, a spectacular first hand account of a teaching session by Jesus, known popularly as the 'Sermon on the Mount' is next. One of the considerations for this sequencing is that this teaching, as important as it is, is not found in the other gospels...not in Mark, and not in John. A much abbreviated version is contained in Luke. Luke's version is obviously an entirely different occasion which occurred on some level ground, a plain, not on a mountainside as was the case for Matthew's setting.

We feel that scroll length considerations were not the limiting factor, as some maintain, for the sermon being excluded in Mark and John, although such could be possible I suppose. Other aspects in those gospel accounts could have been excluded...Herod's debauchery described in Mark for example. To us, it makes more sense that neither Peter nor John were eyewitnesses to the teachings of Jesus in this time period and so did not report on it; they were not followers of Jesus in his early ministry but pursued their occupations instead.

Matthew was employed as a tax collector by the Romans in or near Capernaum, and he could have encountered Jesus there. As a tax collector he would have been shunned by his own family; perhaps he was a rebellious type and took up with decadent Jews in his youth. This is not the time or place to speculate on his life's story. But we and a few others speculate, perhaps even theorize one might say, that he had a natural talent for quickly recording what people said, using his own methods, so he took up the tax collecting trade rather naturally. According to one second century church leader, the supposedly copious notes he would have made concerning John's and Jesus' ministry he transcribed into his native language, Aramaic, but used the Hebrew alphabet not Aramaic script. This transcription was later translated into Greek by others according to this church official. But let's get into Matthew's account of Jesus' teaching or what is called the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus' reputation steadily increased and small crowds of people began to follow him as word spread about the Cana miracle. It seems that Jesus initially wanted to avoid having gawkers interfere with his gathering of sincere followers and disciples and to do this he would retreat to difficult terrain leaving the in-sincere behind; then his disciples and close followers, would sit down around him.

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Robert. You know, I am continually astonished by the lack of attention paid to the teachings of Jesus recorded by Matthew two thousand years ago. It remains the only sermon like teachings by Jesus that we have any record of. I guess, because it is so mass reproduced now, that it is taken for granted. I suspect if we possessed the original record it would be considered priceless. It is one of those incomprehensible facets of mankind's way of valuing things that causes this in my estimation. Here we have the greatest of all teachings explaining the way mankind is to live in a spiritually pleasing way and some, if not most of it, is virtually ignored by even the Christian community.

PROF. FRENKEL:

I agree! I think the only explanation for this is the continuing rejection of the messiah, especially his teachings, by mankind in general since the beginning of his life.

CHAIRMAN:

Having an audience limited to only his most ardent followers or disciples seems to be the case in the setting for what is termed "the Sermon on the Mount". So let us now have this teaching read to us by Michael Goldman as he impersonates the Apostle Matthew. The reading is from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter five through Chapter seven.

THE SERMON

Jesus' Mountainside Teaching

(The Sermon on the Mount)

[The spotlight now turns onto Mr. Goldman as he approaches the podium.]

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down._ [I and] _the other of his disciples came to him, and he began to teach_ [us] _, saying: **"Blessed are the humble, for in them is the realm of the spiritual. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will perceive God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for they have the S**_ piritual Realm _._

_Blessed are you_ [my disciples] _when they insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you on my account. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in the spirit realm, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and be trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your_ genitor _in_ the spirit realm _._

_Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the_ [prophecies made by the] _prophets; I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill Prophecy. I tell you the truth, until_ [the heavens] _and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law's commandments until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in_ the spiritual realm _ **, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in** **the spiritual realm** **. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter into** **the spiritual realm** **.**_

_You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who addresses a brother with words of contempt is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the_ hell-hole _fire. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny._

_You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into the_ hell-hole _. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into the_ hell-hole _._

It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the woman divorced because of unfaithfulness commits adultery.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord-God." But I tell you, do not swear at all: either by the spirit realm, for it is God's throne, or by earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, David. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your "Yes" be Yes, and your "No," No; anything beyond this is wicked.

You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, do not resist a wicked person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to take you to court and thereby take your undergarment, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

_You have heard that it was said, "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove to be sons of your_ genitor _, the one in_ the spirit realm _. Since that one causes the sun to rise on both the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous If you love those who love you, what reward should you have? Are not even the tax collectors doing the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you._ Strive _therefore to be perfect, as is your genitor in_ the spirit realm _._

_Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward with your_ genitor _, the one in_ the spirit realm _. So when making gifts of mercy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have already received their reward in full. But when you are making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your_ genitor _, the one knowing what is done in secret, will give back to you._

_And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they like to pray by standing in the synagogues or on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your_ genitor _, the one unseen. Then your_ genitor _, the one seeing what is done in secret, will give back to you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they imagine they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for the God, your_ genitor _, knows what you need before you ask._

_When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but a secret only to your_ genitor _, the one who is unseen; and then your_ genitor _, the one looking on in secret, will give back to you._

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in the spirit realm, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

_The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are_ [opaque with] _wickedness, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and materialism._

_Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your_ genitor, the one in the spirit realm _, feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to their life?_

_Why do you worry about clothes_ [so much] _? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will not God much more clothe you, even you of little faith?_

_So do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans eagerly run after all these things. And your_ genitor, the one in the spirit realm _, knows that you need them_ [also] _. But seek first the spiritual realm and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough trouble of its own._

Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to swine; if you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

_Keep on asking and it will be given to you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who is asking receives; everyone seeking finds; and to everyone knocking, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If even the wicked, know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more will your_ genitor, the one in the spirit realm _, give good gifts to those who ask._

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up what the Law and the Prophets have to say. Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to Life, and only a few find it.

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize false prophets.

_Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter_ the spiritual realm _, but only he who does the will of my father, the one in_ the spirit realm _. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Yet, then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!_

Therefore I say to everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice, you are like the wise man who built his house on rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like the foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded by his teaching; because he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

[The spotlight fades on Michael and he returns to his dais. The audience erupts with sustained applause.]

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Thank you everyone for your enthusiastic response to the teachings of Jesus....we on the council share those feelings and the importance they have for human well being. Thank you all again!

CHAIRMAN:

Next we will hear prepared comments by the council members on various aspects of the teaching Jesus gave in the sermon we just heard. Some extemporaneous remarks may also occur. When this is finished there will be an intermission. Doctor Frenkel would you like to start?

PROF. FRENKEL:

While we are reluctant to change the Sermon on the Mount text, the council does advocate some word changes in the teaching from what the Bible contains. Hopefully the changes that have been made enhance the audience's understanding and perhaps we should get into these changes now.

CHAIRMAN:

Will this take long?

PROF. FRENKEL:

Probably. [audience laughter]. But it will be well worth it even if we must have a continuation next week [more laughter].

CHAIRMAN:

Alright then...if you would continue.

PROF. FRENKEL:

There is one thing we did not change. At the very beginning of the teaching we heard the word 'blessed' a number of times and this English word is recognized by translators as being inadequate in meaning conveyance; nonetheless it is the best single word we have and so it was left. It would take a whole kettle full of words to express the full meaning; but simply and quickly, in the sermon the word "blessed", according to the translators, has an ethereal concept, a contentment and peaceful connection to the universal God-creator; definitely not a materialistic beneficence type of thing.

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Anton for that comment. Professor Stenpnizer it is your turn.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Well as you know Robin, there are a number of features of the New Testament that cause scholars, analysts, commentators and the like, let alone us common folk [lots of laughter], a great deal of difficulty. We will encounter these issues in our discussions later on. But before we get into these more subtle issues I would like to bring up difficulties found principally with regard to word translation especially that in the sermon we just heard. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus speaks plainly using the vocabulary of ordinary people. Although he uses analogy and metaphors, they are readily understood unlike the obscurity found in his parables to be encounter later in the symposium. His disciples even openly complained about his obliqueness as we will hear later. Nor did he use obscure words like those favored by theologians of today. Now in my estimation the number one problem word is "father"; universally translated from the Greek word "pateer" (transliterated) found throughout the Greek originals and this problem word we have removed from the original sermon text in quite a few places as our audience may have detected.

CHAIRMAN:

By "originals" you mean the manuscript copies of Greek originals which themselves were translations from Matthew's work.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

You caught me in a common miss-speak; Yes we possess nothing in our surviving archives that are originals in any sense....we possess copies of copies of unknown depth of reproduction, so errors are indeed possible but we believe minimal. Nonetheless, we commonly speak of "original" Greek manuscript with your qualification in the back of our minds.

CHAIRMAN:

I am sorry to interrupt like that but we should make it clear before we begin that some uncertainty exists...please continue.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Ah yes! But perhaps I should defer to Prof. Agaister in this matter. We are all in agreement, but Joe is best prepared to elucidate this particular word.

PROF. AGAISTER:

I'm not so sure about that! In common English the word father has a fairly restricted meaning...the human relationship of course. When capitalized it can be an honorific title (e.g. Father of his country) and some religions use it this way as did the Jewish priests two thousand years ago. But let me say that our concern about the Bible translation concerning the word 'father' stems from the way it confuses theological considerations. This is most obvious in a verse from Matthew chapter 23. In verse 9 of chapter 23 one reads "call no man on earth your father". I know of no individual who honors this demand of Jesus. As hard to believe as it may be, no one on the council follows the plain language of Jesus' demand either [laughter]. None of the Greek manuscripts support the addition of the word 'my' ahead of the word 'father' which would give the phrase a measure of meaning acceptability. Most Bibles capitalize the "f" in father trying to imply a divine context. However the Greek "originals" are uncial, that is there is no differentiation in case, in fact every letter in the Greek "originals" is in the capital case. The use of capitalization in modern Bibles confuses the issue. When the text is read out loud in a church, let's say by a minister, he does not stop and say "by the way that is a capitol "F". Thousands of the word "father" appear in the Bible, more frequently than the word "mother". In Hebrew, the word for father "abba" (transliterated) occurs. In a Hebrew-English lexicon a wide range of meanings is found for abba...from guardian to creator god. The Greek equivalent word is pateer (transliterated). Its Greek meaning is more limited to an earthly context. So what word did Jesus actually use? We don't know of course...we are not even sure in what language Jesus spoke the sermon nor what word Matthew used for "father" in transcribing his notes. All we have for certainty is the word pateer applied by the Greek translators

We have pondered this matter for some time and thus far have not come up with a common English word which conveys the meaning Jesus seems to be implying....a spiritual entity (not a human father) which he also considers to be his own creator-father with god-like qualities. The best we can devise is an uncommon word in English...the word "genitor" which has the meaning of "beget", and beget, in our larger dictionaries, can have a spiritual connotation. With this substitution Matthew 23:9 reads "call no man on earth your genitor". But this word is a hard sell and the general public probably won't appreciate the change. We have left Jesus remarks unchanged when he says "my father" with the understanding we have elucidated earlier. We will have more to say about this when Matthew chapter 23 verse 9 is encountered later in the readings.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Well stated Joe. I want to add to what you said with some remarks on how we have tried to avoid ambiguities in expressing non-earthly concepts--like the concept of "heavens". Note the plurality (there are also singular versions in the Bible). English terminology in this regard is ambiguous. We speak of heaven (singular) and multiples thereof. The Jews of old spoke of the "seventh heaven" (taken from other cultures). Paul ambiguously made the claim of being taken up to a "third heaven". We also speak of a materialistic heaven as in the heavenly bodies (e.g. planets). The plural is also used loosely as in "the stars in the heavens". Clarification is sometimes attempted through capitalization but this of little help in speech.

There is also related phraseology found throughout the New Testament. The phrase "Kingdom of God" and a companion phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" can stand some clarification as well. While the words "kingdom", "heaven(s)", and "God" appear thousands of time in the Old Testament, the combination of these terms is unique to the New Testament. Interestingly enough, no definition of the terminology is provided by either John the Baptist or Jesus as if the populace back then knew intuitively what was meant. Today such metaphysical concepts are more frequently voiced as "realm of God" or "spiritual realm" since the word "kingdom" has lost modern relevance and so we were tempted to make this substitution. Despite the tremendous increase in technological advancement in the last two centuries, there still is no more deterministic interpretation for what the phrase "spiritual realm" means, than there was for the transcendent concepts voiced in the Bible twenty centuries ago. Yet we humans have an inner "feeling" for the import of the words. And so we have left much of the text unchanged in this regard in the hope that there is the understanding we have voiced.

There is a specific problem in the first part of the sermon that precipitated this bit of dialog. Jesus says "until (the) heaven (singular) and earth disappear (pass away)"; and with such a translation it can be easily understood that Jesus is saying the non-material "heaven" or spiritual realm will be destroyed along with the earth....when the sun "dies" as the scientist explain. Our view is contrary to this understanding. We feel it is unlikely that the spiritual realm will vanish if it is to be "everlasting" along with a God who will be "without end". Every translation we have examined ignores the particle "the" found in the Greek. We think the singular sense of "heaven" is also in error, even though it is found in the Greek. To avoid the confusion or ambiguity, we have made the change from "until heaven and earth" to "until the heavens and earth" implying the destruction of at least the solar system. A substitution of the words firmament or paradise were decided against because Jesus tells us there will be no sex in heaven. Islamic males are going to be disappointed to discover a sexless heaven is no paradise after all. [audience erupts with laughter]

CHAIRMAN:

That's quite enough Professor Bob! Joe, will you get us back on track?

PROF. AGAISTER:

I will try but Bob has made it hard for me because our next subject is love [audience males snicker]. Yes, the word "love" is another problem word. The word love occurs throughout the New Testament translations. The problem is we use the word love in such broad categorizations. We not only love our fellow humans, we love our animals, we love our cars and other inanimate objects. I personally love ice cream very much (audience laughter). It is a cultural thing. Not so with Jesus. He was precise. He could be because the Greek language was much more precise than English; we have lost that Greek precision in our word "love". Without going into it too deeply, let me just explain the Greek culture had developed (perhaps I might even use the word evolved) to the point that they thought about human inter-relationships more precisely and divided it into four categories which have the Greek words (transliterated) eros, storge, phileo, and the word agapeo; in ascending order of merit. Almost without exception Jesus used the word agapeo; at least that is what we find in the Greek manuscripts. Who knows, perhaps the spirit realm sent Jesus when they did because of that precision. Had he come in our time he would have been hard pressed to express himself with a single English word, as indeed we are. To give a dissertation on what Jesus meant each time the word "love" is encountered in the text is impractical as would be the substitution of the Greek agapeo. So we have left the text unchanged and content ourselves with this commentary. In general, a simplistic rendition of agapeo is unconditional love. Sometimes Jesus uses it in the context of divine unconditional love. The distinction between agapeo and other Greek words will be readily apparent in the discourse between Peter and the risen Jesus that occurs near the end of John's gospel. We will comment on these occurrences at the appropriate point in the symposium. These observations lead to an interesting conjecture. The vocabulary of ancient Aramaic is unknown, but in the modern version of Aramaic and in Hebrew as well, these Greek distinctions are unknown. For the gospel writers to make the distinction in the Greek translations, the notes of Matthew, for instance, must have contained them. If both Aramaic and Hebrew did not possess this distinctiveness, then Jesus must have been speaking in Greek not in Aramaic as conventionally presumed. To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested Jesus spoke "in tongues" to the crowds.

CHAIRMAN:

Dr. Anton, do you want to comment?

PROF. FRENKEL:

I was looking over my notes in my script and I want to make sure we don't miss something. Ahh yes [looking over his notes]. Hopefully this will be last major word change to be discussed before the break. We have removed the word "hell" from the text and replaced it with hell-hole. The word hell is found in most translations and in times past was used by preachers when proclaiming everlasting hell-fire and damnation for unrepentant sinners at judgment day to scare the bejabbers out of children and some adults. Jesus did not imply such a thing; in fact he implied almost the exact opposite. Jesus actually used the word gehenna (in the Greek translation) a word meaningless to most contemporaries and so translators opted for the word hell. To avoid the extreme connotation of such mythological and ever lasting place of punishment, we have changed to the word "hell-hole". Christianity it seems has done much injustice to Jesus' teaching in this regard. Although such can be inferred from the Bible itself; as I said, Jesus did not teach an "everlasting hell". In using the word gehenna, Jesus alludes to the valley of the son of Hinnom, Geey Hinom, from which the Greek word gehenna comes. This valley, actually a deep ravine just south of the ancient Jerusalem wall, had been used in the distant past for abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to pass through a fire burning to the god Molech. In Jesus' time it was used as the city refuse dump where incendiary fires burned continuously day and night to consume both garbage and corpses. It may have been the case that criminals were bound and thrown into gehenna alive instead of being stoned. Indeed, if this so, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth in gehenna. Burning people alive as expletory punishment commonly continued well into the middle ages and occurred even in early American history. We shall encounter additional allegories of this kind of punishment by Jesus later on in the symposium. Jesus, it seems in the sermon, is implying real-time punishment not some indefinitely long punishment in a mythical other-worldly place.

In regard to punishment for crimes in general, Jesus certainly puts a different slant on it and he does so in a most authoritative manner. The council is forming a task force to tackle this issue since it has been a controversial matter for long time; probably since the beginning [audience laughter]. Luckily for you, our efforts have not matured enough for formal presentation at this time; because the symposium would have extended into next weekend. For those interested, an informal discussion could well happen after the conclusion tonight's session. The council's focus in the task force study is on the unique statements Jesus made with regard to "tearing out [your own] eye" and "cutting off [your own] hand" That is as far as I care to go for now....Robin.

CHAIRMAN:

With that we conclude the first half of this session. Commentators let's take a break! Ladies and Gentlemen it is time for intermission. We will return in fifteen minutes to resume the symposium. During the intermission members of the council will be on stage to answer audience questions. This question and answer period will not be televised live now but may be televised in the future pending editing. I hope this doesn't inhibit anyone from submitting questions.

FRIDAY EVENING INTERMISSION

[The commentator and others on stage, including the television crews, exit; a large screen is lowered in front of the curtains on which is displayed a colorful image of a Palestine nature scene. New members of the council come on stage and sit on stage edge. Two others armed with camcorders emerge unobtrusively as possible.]

{Anonymous Council members are indicated by "AC"; questioners by "Q"}

AC:

O.K.! I think we are ready for questions or comments. Please try to keep your questions easy [quiet chuckle] and those questions we can't answer tonight we will get back to you hopefully within this symposium. Please raise your hand and a microphone will be made available for your question or comment so that all can hear it. Way up there to your left, James, is a raised hand.

[An usher with portable mike hastens to an audience member.]

Q:

What time period are we dealing with here?

AC:

This symposia deals exclusively with the teachings of Jesus which find expression in both words and deeds recorded during his 'ministry', called so by the academics. This 'ministry' started at age thirty as we heard, corresponding in the council's opinion to the year 22AD in our present calendar. It ends with his death about ten years later at age forty in the year 33AD.

Q:

You guys are way out in left field. It's been concluded long ago that the gospels were made up by the early church from hearsay and written down hundreds of years later.

AC: [interrupting]

May we have your name Sir? [The person sits down without answering].

[The producers recognize the questioner as an outspoken critic and advise the AC not to respond]

AC:

Thank you for your comment. May we have the next question.

Q:

How come the Lord's Prayer was omitted?

AC:

Good question! We were hoping the omission would be noticed so an extemporaneous response could be made. The whole subject of prayer is extensive and is an ongoing subject of many books and research including the study of neurological activity in the brain. It is worthy of another symposium if it were to be explored in depth. Obviously it cannot be so considered in this symposium. But to respond to your question on just the Lord's Prayer: the council's deletion of it will most certainly invoke strong criticism, even condemnation, by the Christian community where it's used on a regular basis. A simple answer is: analysts of the sermon have expressed consternation over the prayer for some time. There is a problem with literary style which causes suspicion that it is a redaction (insertion) authorized by some unknown early church authority; an interpolation to use a highfaluting word. The prayer is found in only one other instance in the NT; in Luke chapter 11: verse 1 where it is not even a part of the abbreviated Jesus' sermon given there. Luke's account is troublesome because of the disrespectful way in which Luke's account has the prayer come about. The apostles are quoted as demanding Jesus provide them a prayer example. Such demanding is problematic and causes further suspicion. In the Sermon on the Mount, the prayer content is contrary to Jesus' teaching just a few verses prior. The Lord's prayer is obviously a community prayer in opposition to Jesus' command of praying in private in 'truth and spirit'. Furthermore is as disrespectful as was the apostle's demand in Luke's account. It is a demand statement in most respects, one commanding God, so to speak. This is a common form of prayer in most church services and to which the council objects. The council asks the question: are we not to be humble in approaching God in prayer? Jesus asserts we are to "ask" implying humbleness. Who are we but arrogant humans if we command God. These are our arguments for deleting the prayer...it is hard for us to believe Jesus would have given it as an example. May we have the next question, please.

Q:

I know women who are offended by Jesus' remarks on adultery as was read in the sermon.

AC:

Yes, thank you. Believe me the council well understands what you just said. The women members of the council strongly voiced their opinions on what Jesus is quoted as saying and to them it smacks of being unfair. We have debated this issue at some length and the conclusion was to leave this philosophical teaching of Jesus unchanged but to expound upon it as I will attempt. Few psychologists, child or otherwise, feel that large scale divorce has a favorable impact on society especially the impact on children....we can't go into this subject in any kind of depth....many research studies have been made in the last few decades. Instead, let's try to put Jesus' remarks in perspective. First of all divorce was uncommon among the Jews in Jesus' time; and most marriages were arranged (which seems to have worked well in general). In the sermon Jesus was not addressing his remarks to women....there were no women present in his audience as best we know...he was admonishing the chauvinistic, dominant male culture of his time. Except for the immoral, women were confined to the home and domestic servitude....men were dominant to the extreme...akin to what we observe in the conservative Arabic culture today. The lucky ones were those with appreciative, compassionate husbands. Women could not give testimony in court in any kind of dispute let alone that dealing with a divorce issue. It was much easier for a philandering male to obtain a divorce at that time than it is for men today. He simply had to write a simple uncontestable decree stating an unsubstantiated dissatisfaction and his wife was cast out into a hostile environment where, for the less fortunate, the only choice was to become a temple prostitute for instance. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian who lived at that time, in his book 'Life', tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, "About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners." Also, virginity was more prized by men then than it is today as a reading of the Jewish marriage ritual will reveal; so an outcast woman had it tough. Women, who became temple prostitutes or engaged in other immoral activities to stay alive because of circumstances beyond their control, deserve compassion not condemnation; the situation was truly unfair to women and the moral hypocrisy of the male community deserved Jesus' rebuke. We further believe Jesus condemned those women who commit adultery in hopes of bettering their position in life as in, for example, the exact situation with Herod Antipas. We won't get into that story in the presentation since it is not by one of our eye witnesses, but those familiar with it know John the Baptist decried the immorality of what Herod and Herodias had done and for doing so was imprisoned and later killed by Herod at Herodias' insistence. John could well have been outraged at the poor example being set by the rulers of his Essene people. We think Jesus advised men to avoid such a relationship to discourage a woman's desire to break up a marriage for selfish reasons at the expense of their children's wellbeing. A further elaboration of Jesus' philosophy on this aspect of human relations will be read in a following session.

Q:

Would you provide more details on the Herod-Herodias affair?

AC:

Unfortunately we are not prepared to do that. Moreover the producers and council feel it is inappropriate subject material for this symposium. Next Question.

Q:

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

AC:

As far as we know absolutely nothing. He did not address many human activities, at least in the scriptures, such as thievery, referring such matters to "Law" as we heard in the sermon. Nor did he detail what he meant by "Law" but gave the impression it did not go far enough in certain cases as we also heard. Some issues are addressed in the Old Testament but even the law, as we understand it, did not get into such issues as abortion-on-demand nor will we here in the symposium. Our commentary is intended to clarify, where we can, issues of Jesus' teachings that are clouded by language/translation difficulties. Again, with regard to sexuality issues, Jesus' intent seems to be one of amplifying on the "institution" of marriage and its sacred qualities and the need for human commitment to it.

May we have the next question [lengthy pause]. If there are no more questions we want to thank you for your participation. The original cast will return in about five minutes to resume the session.

END OF INTERMISSION

[Intermission ends and the stage setting is unchanged]

FRIDAY EVENING SYMPOSIUM SECOND HALF

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome back everyone! We think Jesus gave teachings, like we heard before the break, in synagogues and out in the countryside all through out the region of Galilee for a number of years. For instance an abbreviated version of the mountain teaching is found in Luke's gospel and was given by Jesus on level ground instead of on a mountainside. To substantiate this claim, we have this comment on Jesus ministry in Matthew's account....Matt. chapter 4: verse 23-25. Michael would you please read this for us.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

Jesus traveled throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues, preaching everywhere the Good News about the spirit realm. And he healed people who had every kind of sickness and disease. News about him spread far beyond the borders of Galilee so that the sick were soon coming to be healed from as far away as Syria. And whatever their illness and pain, or if they were possessed by demons, or were epileptics, or were paralyzed; he healed them all. Large crowds followed him wherever he went — people from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, from all over Judea, and from east of the Jordan River.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Thank you Michael! This kind of teaching ministry seems to have stopped about the time Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist or perhaps shortly thereafter when John the Baptist was arrested by Herod Antipas. Instead, after that he taught by analogy and parable and, in the opinion of the council, no longer gave plain teachings on how people are to live their lives in a spiritual pleasing fashion as he did in the Sermon on the Mount, but focused instead on the metaphysical.

The Baptist's ministry, the baptism of Jesus and his temptation are the first of the so called synoptic events in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. We call these "event markers" since they seem to have been considered important enough for three, if not all four, "evangelists" to record them. In most cases only one of the versions will be read in the symposia. In some cases a merging of the texts will be done.

And with that our chronology next brings us to that very baptism of Jesus which is found in three of the four gospels. Unfortunately the three accounts make the whole issue of the baptism episode complex and fraught with conflicting time sequences. It is our opinion that none of the gospel writers, or other sources for that matter, was an eye witness to the baptism of Jesus but got the account of both the baptism and wilderness temptation from the baptizer himself and this has led to the confusing accounts. Yet they are in agreement in some details. All three accounts, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, agree that Jesus' baptism was in the Jordan River near Jericho so that it was possible for Jesus to have gone into the nearby Judean wilderness immediately after the baptism as the temptation accounts indicate.

Harmonies of the gospels have a hard time with the baptism episode and ignore the sequence conflicts. Jesus' baptism, while apparently important, at least symbolically, is not central to his teaching; so we will digress further into this subject only to a limited extent and mostly with the time element.

To begin with, Luke once again provides a quite specific time mark. I would like to have you hear the chronology Luke provides. This valuable time mark is found in Luke 3:1-2; and again an eye witness account by an unknown person: "It was now the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, the Roman emperor. Pilate was governor over Judea; Herod Antipas was ruler over Galilee; his brother Philip was ruler over Iturea and Traconitis; Lysanias was ruler over Abilene. Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests."

Scholars are almost universal in their agreement that Luke is referring to a time corresponding to about twenty-six AD. So scholars link the "it was now" to the year 26AD. Further they link this year, 26AD, to the beginning of Jesus' ministry at the age of thirty as I read previously in Luke's gospel account. Going back thirty years from 26AD gives the year of Jesus' birth somewhere in the 5-6BC range. This is in conflict with currently accepted time of Herod's death, 5BC; Herod the Great that is. Therefore, contemporary scholarship now contends that the birth date could not be any later than about 7BC and we have pushed it back several years more, as I said at the beginning of the symposium. As we said at the beginning of the symposium, the earlier birthdate yields the beginning of Jesus' ministry at age thirty having occurred in the year 22AD. It was in this time frame, 22AD that Jesus and John met in the upper reaches of the Jordan River which was read from John's gospel.

And so we contend that it is in the 26AD time frame that we will hear the next part of Luke's time mark. The concept of "time frame" had Luke known of it would have prevented much of the ambiguity. If one inserts the "time frame" or an equivalent expression "in this period of time" into Luke's account the situation becomes more understandable. Doing this to the continuation of Luke's gospel one reads: "[In this period of time] _a message from God came to John, son of Zechariah, who was living out in the wilderness. Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven."_ Thus, instead of linking 26AD to Jesus' birth, we link it to when John the Baptist returned to the "Desert of Judea", and further link it to Jesus' baptism which account immediately follows. So by this reckoning, the baptism occurred about five years after Jesus began his ministry. He would have been about thirty-five. To make sense of our interpretation, one must presume that the time mark 26AD refers to the intense baptism event near Jericho where it was possible for "all Jerusalem" to be baptized by John, as Mark's account exaggerates. The accounts do give the impression that lots of people were being baptized nonetheless, and from extended regions of Palestine as well. We, rather obviously, presume John had been gathering disciples and baptizing sporadically up and down the Jordan River valley gaining a reputation in so doing. This is a significant change in chronology from the traditional arrangement between the synoptic accounts and John's account of the Baptist's ministry.

Let us now hear Matthew's account with his description of John's baptism ministry as it occurred in the Jordan River valley; in the portion of Palestine known as Judea. Matthew's account begins with "In those days" which we interpret as somewhere around the year 26AD. We have chosen Matthew's version because it is more complete than Mark's account. The most detailed account is found in Luke's gospel. Michael will give the Apostle Matthew's account found in Matthew chapter 3 beginning at verse 1.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the Desert of Judea. He said, "Repent, for the spirit realm is near." John was the one who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him'". John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan valley. Coming to the Jordan River John began his water cleansing ritual and when the people openly confessed their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance instead of thinking to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones_ [I hold in my hand] _God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Indeed, I baptize you with water if you repent. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire._

PROF. STENPNIZER:

What an inspired prediction by John the Baptist this was and notice that he says Jesus will baptize with 'the Holy Spirit and fire'; and not water, as a later New Testament account will verify. And I would also like to mention that in the baptism event itself it appears that John the Baptist and Jesus know of each other better than before.

CHAIRMAN:

Thanks for pointing that out Bob; but permit Michael to continue with Matthew's account.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_Jesus came all the way from Western Galilee by foot to the Jordan River to be baptized by John._ [As John told me the story,] _John didn't want to baptize Jesus. "I am the one who needs to be baptized by you," John said, "so why are you coming to me?" Jesus replied, **"Permit it to be done right now, because in that way we will be conforming to a fulfilling of all that is righteousness."** So then John baptized him. After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with him." To some it sounded like thunder but the skies were clear._

PROF. AGAISTER:

It is at this point that we come to another controversial point in the eye witness accounts—the temptation of Jesus. It is controversial in its mythological aspects. We on the council have little doubt that Jesus was tempted to miss-use his powers and their implication in the real world. But the surrealistic presentation in Matthew and Luke, which is not reproduced in Mark's account, suggests an allegorical treatment of Jesus' life and so in the interest of presenting a non-mythological account let us just give Peter's account which, since he was not present during the episode as best we can tell, then even it is not an eye witness account, but hearsay instead. This is what one reads in Mark chapter 1 verse 12 _"Immediately the Holy Spirit compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness and he was there for forty days, being tempted by Satan."_

[The spotlight is turned onto Prof. Stenpnizer.]

PROF. STENPNIZER:

I agree that the other gospel accounts of this event have a mythical aura about them perhaps made up by John the Baptist himself. Those other accounts state that Jesus was by himself so there were no actual witnesses to the temptation. And I would also like to emphasize that the gospel of John does not even mention the temptation of Jesus. On the other hand, the disciples must have felt it was an important aspect of Jesus' life for three of the four gospels to include it. In Luke's account the temptation seems to be the turning point for Jesus as Luke posits Jesus going immediately afterward to the Nazareth synagogue and declaring his mission to be a fulfilling of a prediction made hundreds of years before. Even though the synagogue event is not an eye witness account by Matthew, Peter, or John, it is obviously an eye witness account by someone other than these three. We believe it had to be some one following Jesus and recording in written form what was happening...an ancient reporter in our terms. A potential but controversial figure for such a witness is Levi whose appearance in the gospel accounts is mysterious and ambiguous. Another point I wish to make...I am personally convinced that if Jesus had failed the "temptation" testing, further supernatural powers would have been forfeited.

CHAIRMAN:

O.K. So now our chronology returns to John's account which has Jesus going up to Jerusalem. We presume it was convenient for Jesus to do so following the baptism and temptation in the nearby Judean wilderness. This occurs before John the Baptist gets into trouble with Herod Antipas. Benjamin will read John's account beginning at John chapter 2: verse 13.

[the spotlight now is turned onto Benjamin Sage who is at the podium.]

APOSTLE JOHN:

_It happened to be the time for the annual Passover celebration, and Jesus went to Jerusalem_ [with us following along] _. In the Temple area Jesus saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves for sacrifices; and he saw money changers behind their counters. Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and oxen, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, **"Get these things out of here. Don't turn my father's house into a marketplace!"** Later, we disciples remembered this prophecy from the Scriptures: "The zeal for your house will consume me."_

_What right do you have to do these things?" the Jewish leaders demanded. "If you have this authority from God, show us a miraculous sign to prove it." **"All right,"** Jesus replied. **"Destroy this divine habitation, and in three days I will raise it up."** "What!" they exclaimed. "It took forty-six years to build this divine habitation_ (Temple) _, and you can do it in three days?" After he was raised from the dead, we remembered that he had said this; and we believed both Jesus and the Scriptures."_

PROF. FRENKEL:

Here we have another time marker. Historians generally agree that temple construction by Herod started in about 20 BC; therefore the year implied by John's account would be approximately 26AD which is in excellent agreement with the baptism chronology.. About seven years later Jesus would be killed. By the way, analysts agree that Jesus spoke metaphorically when he said "destroy this divine habitation".....by that Jesus meant his body and notice the use of the word divine. This is one of the more dramatic predictions of his death and resurrection Jesus made and fulfilled......please continue Benjamin

APOSTLE JOHN (continuing):

Because of the miraculous signs he did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many leaders were convinced that he was indeed the Messiah, but we knew Jesus didn't trust them, because he knew what people were really like. No one needed to tell him about human nature.

_At that time there was a Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews_ [member of the Sanhedrin] _. To protect his prominent position he came to speak with Jesus in secret at night. "Teacher," he said, "we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are proof enough that God is with you." Jesus replied, **"Truly, truly, I assure you, unless you are generated from above, you can never see the realm of God."** "What do you mean?" exclaimed Nicodemus. "How can an old man go back into his mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus replied, **"Truly, truly I say to you, unless anyone should be generated out of water and spirit, that person cannot enter the spirit realm. Humans can reproduce only human life, but what is generated out of the spirit is spirit. So don't be surprised at my statement that you must be born from above. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so it is with everyone born of the Spirit."** Nicodemus asked, "How can this be?" Jesus replied, **"You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don't understand these things? Truly, truly I assure you, I am telling you what I know and have seen and give witness thereof, and yet you won't believe me. But if you people don't believe me even when I tell you about earthly matters, how can you possibly believe if I tell you of spiritual things?"**_

_Afterward, Jesus_ [and I along with my brother James and some of the other disciples] _left Jerusalem and went into the Judean countryside for quite a while and we baptized there. At this time John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon, near Shalem, because there was plenty of water there and people kept coming and being baptized; for John had not yet been_ [arrested and] _put into prison. We learned a certain Jew began an argument with John's disciples over the ceremonial cleansing._ [Thus agitated,] _John's disciples came to John and said, "Teacher, the man you met on the other side of the Jordan River, the one you said was the Messiah, is also baptizing people. And everybody is going over there instead of coming here to us." John replied, "God in the_ [spirit realm] _appoints each person's work. You yourselves know how plainly I told you that I am not the messiah. I am here to prepare the way for him — that is all. The bride will go where the bridegroom is and the bridegroom's friend rejoices with him. I am the bridegroom's friend, and I am filled with joy at his success. He will become greater and greater, and I must become less and less. He has come from above and is above everyone else. I am of the earth, and my understanding is limited to the things of earth. He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them! Those who do believe him certify that his witness of God is true. For the one sent by God speaks God's words, and God's spirit is given without being measured. God loves his son, and he has placed all_ (things) _in his hands. And all who believe in the son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the son will not experience life, but the wrath of God remains upon them."_

PROF. FRENKEL:

Attention should be drawn to the disclaimer John the Baptist gives. The last portion of what Benjamin read is clearly metaphysical and that is precisely what John says he has no understanding of. Personally I think these thoughts of John the Baptist should be taken with a grain of salt if he voiced them at all. We will encounter other accounts by John the apostle which smack of what is called 'interpolation' by subsequent editors or scribes; so much for that now.

This ends John the Baptist's witness which we think was brought to our eye witness, John, as hearsay by one of the Baptist's disciples. The Apostle John next turns his attention to what is going on with Jesus and his disciples just before they leave Judea O.K. Benjamin please continue"

APOSTLE JOHN:

_When Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was baptizing and making more disciples than John---though indeed Jesus himself didn't baptize because_ [I and the other] _disciples were_ [the ones] _baptizing_ \--- _we left Judea to return to Galilee._ [To avoid further contact with the Jewish leadership,] _we went through Samaria which took us to the Samaritan village of Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was there; and Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat_ [wearily beside] _the well; it was about the sixth hour_ (noon) _. A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, **"Give me a drink."**_ [Except for James and myself who were off to one side in the shade, he was alone at the time because the other of] ( _his disciples had gone into the village to buy some food). The woman was surprised, for Jews refuse to have anything to do with Samaritans_ [that does not involve business doings] _. She said to Jesus, "You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan woman. Why are you asking me for a drink?" Jesus replied, **"If you only knew the free gift God has for you and who is the one saying give me a drink, you would have asked me, and I would give you living water."** She said to Jesus, "Sir, you don't have a rope or a bucket, and this is a very deep well. Where would you get this living water? And besides, are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his cattle enjoyed?" Jesus replied, **"Everyone drinking water from this well will become thirsty again. But whoever drinks from the water I give them will never thirst again in this age. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them life."** The woman said, "Sir, give me this water so that I may neither thirst nor have to come here to draw water again."_

_**"Go and get your husband,"** Jesus told her. "I don't have a husband," the woman replied. Jesus said, **"You're right! You don't have a husband — for you have had five husbands, and you aren't even married to the man you're living with now."** The woman said to him, "I perceive you are a prophet; so tell me, why is it that you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only place of worship, while we Samaritans claim it is here at Mount Gerizim, where our ancestors worshiped?" Jesus replied, **"Believe me woman, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship here or in Jerusalem. You Samaritans know little about what you worship, while we worship what we have known, because salvation comes through the Jew. But the time is coming and is already here when true worshipers will worship the genitor in spirit and truth. Indeed, the genitor is looking for anyone who will worship in that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship must worship in spirit and truth."** The woman said, "I know the messiah is coming, the one called_ [the] _Christ_ [the anointed one] _. When that one comes, he will declare all to us." Then Jesus told her, **"I am the one speaking to you!"**_

_Just then_ the [other] _disciples arrived. They were astonished to find Jesus talking to a_ [Samaritan] _woman, but none of them asked him why he was doing so or what they had been discussing. The woman left her water jar beside the well, went back to the village_ [and we heard later] _told everyone, "Come and meet a man who told me everything I ever did! Can this be the Christ?" The villagers upon hearing this believed Jesus to be the promised messiah because the woman had said, "He told me everything I ever did!" So the people came streaming from the village to see him. After meeting him they begged him to stay at their village. So we all stayed for two days, long enough for many of them to hear him and believe. Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe because we have heard him ourselves, not just because of what you told us. He is indeed the_ [messiah] _."_

_At the end of the two days' stay, we went with Jesus on into Galilee. The Galileans welcomed him, for_ [some of] _them had been in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration and had seen his miraculous signs there. Later, however, Jesus himself bore witness to the fact that a prophet is not honored in his own home town._

[The spotlight fades and Benjamin returns to his dais. Once again the spotlight is on Dr. Frenkel.]

PROF. FRENKEL:

In John's eyewitness account we have an interesting example where the words messiah and Christ appear almost side by side in the exclamation by the Samaritan woman. The Samaritans were fluent in both Aramaic and Greek the latter being more their native tongue. Their culture had been transposed from the Hellenistic Greek culture to the North in one of the many invasions of Palestine. She first says messiah in Aramaic and then the equivalent word in Greek. In Hebrew the word is messiahs (transliterated) and the Aramaic is supposedly similar (but really unknown). The word Christ is also a transliteration of the Greek. Notice also that Jesus calls the Samaritan water drawer "woman" as he did Mary...this time he is obviously not related to her. Back to you Robin.

CHAIRMAN:

At this stage in Jesus' ministry it is helpful in understanding the sequence of events to bring into play some of the account found in Luke's gospel. Since Luke material is outside the scope of the three eye witnesses, the focus of the symposium, Dr. Frenkel will do the reading honors; Dr. Frenkel if you would please.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Yes, but first a few words of explanation. We on the council have puzzled over a remark in John's witness which will soon be read where the account says: "This was the second sign done by Jesus after coming from Judea into Galilee". Sign is of course another word for miracle. We have eased the transition from the baptism in Judea to the scenario in Galilee by the superposition of John's account just read. Now we suggest that the raising of the widow's son in Nain is the first miracle since Jesus left Judea and his baptism. After that we suppose he went to the synagogue in Nazareth, which is on the way to Cana. In this way both a chronological and geographic problems that has vexed analysts and commentators can be overcome. I read from Luke's gospel chapter 7 starting at verse eleven.

" _Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out — the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said,_ _"Don't cry."_ _Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said,_ _"Young man, I say to you, get up!"_ _The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people." This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country."_

I would like to emphasize that in our opinion this is not only the first miracle done by Jesus after coming from Judea into Galilee, but also the first miraculous raising of a person from the grip of death. With this ability becoming known in the region he is warmly received in his home town. It is only after the religious leaders accuse him of doing his miracles by the power of the devil does crowd sentiment turn against him as we will read later in the symposium. Let me read the Luke account next found in Luke chapter four beginning at verse sixteen.]

"Jesus returned to Galilee filled with the Holy Spirit's power and he became well known throughout the surrounding country. He taught in their synagogues and was praised by everyone. When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. The scroll containing the messages of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him, and he unrolled the scroll to the place where it says: 'The spirit of the Lord-God is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord-God's favor has come.' [After reading the passage out loud to the congregation,] he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at him intently. Then he said, "This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!" All who were there spoke well of him and were amazed by the gracious words that fell from his lips."

I am stopping the reading of Luke's account at this point to make an observation upon which there is council agreement.....but sure to be controversial among other scholars. Luke's continuation of this synagogue event, while seamlessly presented in the Bible, takes on a sudden, strong adversarial motif. In one sentence the synagogue audience is full of praise and the very next sentence the audience begins to be in opposition. We believe that for whatever reason, two separate accounts have been melded together when they should not have been. Besides the unusual turnabouts, the second portion clearly implies that Jesus has performed miracles in Capernaum when in actuality he hasn't been there yet by Luke's own chronology. Therefore the council thinks the remaining portion of Luke's account takes place at a much later time frame after both Matthew and Mark accounts have Jesus performing miraculous healings in Capernaum. Luke's remaining account of the Nazareth synagogue scene will be presented at a later point in the symposium. I think most will agree it fits in better chronologically because we can merge it with accounts of the same scenario found in both Matthew's and Mark' gospels.

PROF. AGAISTER:

I for one agree; hopefully there will be others! And I can use my imagination at this point and have Jesus leave Nazareth after coming there from the Judean wilderness where he was tempted, and after the favorable synagogue response, head back to the Capernaum area to connect up with his followers after leaving Cana which we will hear about next. Luke's account following the Nazareth synagogue event supports this contention and I quote from Luke chapter 4 beginning at verse 31: "Then Jesus went to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and taught there in the synagogue every Sabbath day."

Before the eyewitness readings continue I would like to clarify, if I am able, another word trouble maker...the word Lord. In the Greek manuscripts it is kyrie (transliterated with a 'y' although there is no 'y' sound in Greek, nor an equivalent character in its alphabet). The main problem is one of ambiguity. Is the word 'Lord' (capitalized in most Bibles) an honorific title or a reference to a divine entity or both; scholarship is divided on this issue. It is an interesting and fundamental question. Jesus apparently let himself be called 'Lord' in addition to Rabbi or Rabboni (master teacher in Aramaic) as found in Luke chapter 6: verse 46. The confusion is evident in Matthew chapter 22 verse 44 as we have it in our Bibles where we read Jesus saying, quoting psalm 110: "The Lord said to my Lord...". Furthermore, exactly what word did Jesus use in the Nazareth synagogue scene that was just read? We doubt it was "Lord" and accordingly we have substituted "Lord-God". The confusion was precipitated centuries before Jesus' time. In addition to being religiously zealous, the Jews shared another humanistic cultural trait...... superstition. Superstition had pervaded their religious belief to the extent that pronouncing the 'name' of God was prohibited. This forbidden name has come down to us only in symbolic form...the tetragrammaton (YHVH transliterated). In the Greek translation produced from the Hebrew in the third century BC the tetragrammaton was translated "Lord" (kyrie) to avoid affronting the superstition when the text was read out loud. Thus the word Lord is the form traditionally found in most bibles. Since Christians are not bound by this particular superstition, a common interpretation of the tetragrammatron is the word Yehovah where the vowel sounds have been guessed at by early scribes. The Latinized version is Jehovah. Ancient (as well as modern) Jews sidestepped the issue by saying the word "Adonai" when the tetragrammaton was encountered. Adonay is based on a Hebrew word which on occasion seems to have divine implication. Still another word choice for Lord is messiah. Jesus claimed to be the son of man, the messiah (the anointed one), and as noted, allowed himself to be called Lord as well. There is evidence that in ancient times David's vocabulary included the Hebrew word for messiah although most Bibles based on late manuscripts retain "anointed one". Since the Psalm verse Jesus referenced was a prediction by David before he was King and had children, then the subject verse in Matthew can make better sense if substitutions are made. Before I do that let's go back to the Nazareth synagogue for a moment. In the backwater Essene community that Nazareth was, it is quite likely that the Isaiah scroll Jesus was handed was in Hebrew not the Greek Septuagint version; in which case the tetragrammaton would have occurred. What word did Jesus choose when he came across the tetragrammaton? Since there was no adverse reaction by the synagogue audience to Jesus' reading, our best guess would be he said "Adonai", or an unknown Aramaic version thereof. How can we express Adonai in English? We have chosen the apostle Thomas' exclamation upon seeing the risen Jesus...'my Lord and my God'. The risen Jesus is not said to correct his utterance so therefore we go back to our favorite expediency---hyphenation and suggest Lord-God. That is what appears in our version of the Nazareth synagogue scene as read by Dr. Frenkel....you would have noticed it if you were wide awake and paying close attention [audience laughter].

Returning now for the last time in this session to Matthew chapter 22 the substituted word would yield the following rendition: "The Lord-God said to my Lord (the messiah)". I think lord-God is a more sensible rendition and will be used consistently throughout.

One other minor matter: we have chosen to avoid the word "Christ" wherever possible substituting "the anointed one" or messiah as appropriate since the eyewitnesses are speaking in Aramaic that is being translated into English. The word "Christ" as the risen Jesus' name did not become popular until decades after Jesus' death. Good grief is that enough on wordage or what...? Robin please take it away and let's continue the Bible reading.

CHAIRMAN:

I have to admit this whole business is a bit confusing. I also have to admit that it makes sense of Jesus' travels in Galilee to have him go to Cana next and then on to Capernaum. So let's have John's Cana account which is a continuation of what was read earlier at the end of the journey through Samaria. Benjamin if you would please.

APOSTLE JOHN:

_In the course of our journey through Galilee, we arrived at the town of Cana, where Jesus had turned water into wine. A royal official_ [administrator, probably close to King Herod and therefore one who probably lived in Tiberius,] _whose son lived in Capernaum and was very sick, learned of Jesus' return and came to Cana. He found Jesus and begged him to come back to Capernaum with him to heal his son, who was about to die. Jesus asked, **"Must I do miraculous signs and wonders before you people will believe in me?"** The official pleaded, "Lord,_ [I believe] _, please come now before my son dies." Then Jesus told him, **"You may leave, your son lives!"** And the man believed Jesus' word and left. While he was on his way, some of his servants met him with the news that his son was alive and well. He asked them when_ [his son] _had begun to feel better, and they replied, "Yesterday afternoon at the seventh hour_ [one o'clock] _his fever suddenly disappeared!" Then the father realized it was the same time that Jesus had told him, "Your son lives." And the officer and his entire household came to believe in Jesus. This was the second sign done by Jesus after coming from Judea into Galilee._

CHAIRMAN:

Now that we have cleared up the second sign business to everyone's satisfaction I hope, [audience laughter] let's continue on to Capernaum. Professor Stenpnizer it is your turn to gives us some details.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

It is in this time frame that the arrest of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas occurred. If you recall, we heard earlier in John's gospel that John the Baptist had not yet been arrested. Historians are not sure when this arrest occurred exactly; some guess late 27AD with which we agree. We think he was killed some years later, perhaps 29 or 30AD.While there is 'coordination' in the synoptic gospels about the arrest event, the gospels differ widely on the sequence of events around the time of arrest. Speculation is required because it seems to us that Jesus and his disciples didn't learn of the arrest until well after they had left Judea. We believe it was at this time that Jesus made more permanent quarters in Capernaum in fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. Had Jesus known of Antipas' action it is problematic he would have chosen to reside in his territory.

Nonetheless it was after the arrest that Jesus gathered his three closest disciples, Peter and the two brothers James and John, and the next closest, Andrew, Peter's brother; and later Matthew; eventually making them Apostles. Where and when Jesus called the remaining apostles we are not told. Peter and his brother Andrew were professional fishermen. Peter was to become the lead personality among Jesus' followers and had been renamed Peter meaning 'rock' by Jesus; his given name being Simon. This renaming happened as we heard earlier, when Peter had been introduced to Jesus by his brother. Apparently the four who were to become disciples and eventually the closest Apostles to Jesus were the only apostles involved in the fishing business; and for some reason unknown to us today did not or could not leave their occupation and become steady or even part time disciples of Jesus at first. Nonetheless, as the ministry of Jesus progressed his growing fame would not be unknown to them. There is reason to believe that the four were of the Essene community which had, for generations, been expecting the messiah. John the Baptist's message about preparing the way for the messiah would not have been lost on them. And so when the calling came, in person, years later, they immediately accepted...their acceptance was not out of the blue so to speak, contrary to what biblical accounts seem to give the appearance of.

I also want to point out that John's gospel does not relate this calling episode, which is curious indeed. Our speculation is that John considers himself to already be a disciple of John the Baptist in keeping with the chronology of John's involvement in the Cana wedding years earlier. The calling of the other three is not therefore important to him.

The gospels are not clear about Peter's residence. In John's gospel it states "Bethsaida...the city of Peter and Andrew". Archeological evidence suggests that the adjective "city" may be an exaggeration it being no more than a small fishing village or hamlet in the experts' opinion; not likely to have or support a synagogue. In the other gospels the healing of Peter's mother-in-law seems to occur in Capernaum with the claim that this was their home. It is not clear whether the two had left Bethsaida to live with Peter's mother-in-law or if Peter and Andrew had purchased their home and Peter's mother-in-law came to live with them (presumably a consequence of marriage). It is only in the letters written by Paul that Peter is said to have a wife (a new one?). Other than this mother-in-law episode and the fact of his having a brother, Andrew, nothing of a factual nature with regard to Peter's family relationships is found in the gospels.

CHAIRMAN:

We shall now hear this important event, the official calling of the four disciples; an account combined from Mark and Matthew as well as Luke (Mark 1:14-39, Matthew 4:12-22, Luke 4:14-15;5:1-11) and read by Benjamin as the Apostle Peter. Parts of this narrative are from Matthew's gospel. From now on we will not give chapter and verse. I think our audience gets the idea on how the harmonization has been done. O.K. Jonathon you are on.

APOSTLE PETER:

When Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he left Nazareth and took up residence in Capernaum, beside the Sea of Galilee, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali. This fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy: 'In the land of Zebulun and of Naphtali, beside the sea, beyond the Jordan River — in Galilee where so many Gentiles live —the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. And for those who lived in the land where death casts its shadow, a light has shined." From then on, Jesus began to preach **"The appointed time has been fulfilled, and the realm of God has drawn near. Repent you people; and have faith in the good news."**

_One day, as Jesus was walking along the shore beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, me, Simon, and my brother, Andrew, fishing with nets, for we were commercial fishermen. Jesus called out to us, **"Come, be my disciples, and I will show you how to fish for people!"** And we left our nets at once and went with him. A little farther up the shore he saw James and his half-brother John, sitting in a boat with their father, Zebedee, supervising net mending. And he called them to be his disciples also. They immediately followed him, leaving the boat and their father behind. We followed Jesus to Capernaum. The next Sabbath day, Jesus went to the synagogue and_ [no sooner had he entered] _than he began teaching the people. They were astounded by his teaching, for he taught as one who had real authority — quite unlike the scribes_ (the teachers of religious law) _. At the same time, a man possessed by an evil spirit was in the synagogue, and he began shouting, "Why are you bothering us, Jesus, you Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are — the Holy One of God!" Jesus rebuked the spirit. **"Be silent! Come out of him."** Then the evil spirit, after throwing the man into a convulsion and making him yell loudly, left him._ [I could see astonishment grip the audience,] _and they began to discuss what had happened. "What sort of new teaching is this?" one asked excitedly. "It has such authority! Even evil spirits obey him!" The news of what he had done spread quickly through that entire area of Galilee._

_Immediately after the Synagogue teaching, we went over to my home that I shared with Andrew, along with James and John_ [who had stayed with us] _. My mother-in-law was there and sick in bed with a high fever and we told Jesus about her right away. He went to her bedside, and as he took her by the hand and helped her to sit up, the fever suddenly left, and she got up and_ [even] _prepared a meal for us. That evening at sunset, many sick and demon-possessed people were brought to Jesus and a huge crowd of people from all over Capernaum gathered outside the door to watch. So Jesus healed great numbers of sick people who had many different kinds of diseases, and he ordered many demons to come out of their victims. But he refused to allow the demons to speak because they knew who he was._

_The next morning, long before daybreak, Jesus arose and went out alone into a secluded place to pray. Later,_ [after we discovered he had left,] _the four of us went out looking for him. Once we found him_ [I said] _, "all of us are looking for you." Jesus replied, **"Let us go on to other towns as well, in order that I might preach to them also, because that is why I came."** So_ [we] _traveled_ [with him] _throughout the region of Galilee, and he preached in their synagogues and expelled demons from many people._

[Not too long after this] _a large crowd was following_ [and] _Jesus_ [came] _down from a mountainside. Suddenly_ [out of the crowd] _, a man with leprosy approached Jesus. He knelt before him and humbly begged, "If you want to, you can make me well again." Jesus touched him. **"I want to,"** he said. **"Be healed!"** And instantly the leprosy disappeared. Then Jesus said to him, **"Go right over to the priest and let him examine you. Don't talk to anyone along the way. Take along the offering required in the Law of Moses for those who have been healed of leprosy, so everyone will have proof of your healing."** Instead the former leper went and began to talk about his healing everywhere he went, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed in the countryside. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere._

_When_ [we] _arrived in Capernaum, a Roman military officer_ (a Centurion) _came and pleaded with Jesus, "Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed and racked with pain." Jesus said, **"I will come and heal him."** But the officer said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from here and my servant will be healed!_ [I know this because] _I am under the authority of my superior officers and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, 'Go,' and they go, or 'Come,' and they come. And if I say to my slaves, 'Do this or that,' they do it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to the crowd_ [that had formed] _, he said, **"I tell you the truth, I haven't seen faith like this in all the land of Israel! And I tell you many Gentiles will come from all over the world and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven. But many Israelites — those for whom the Kingdom was prepared — will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."** Then Jesus said to the Roman officer, **"Go on home. What you have believed has happened."** And the young servant was healed that same hour._

_Some time later the news of his arrival spread quickly through the town. Soon the house where he was staying was so packed with visitors that there wasn't room for one more person, not even outside the door. And he preached to them. Four men arrived carrying a paralytic on a cot. They couldn't get to Jesus through the crowd, so they dug through the clay and reed roof above his head. Then they lowered the paralytic on his cot, right down in front of Jesus. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "_ [Young man] _, **your sins are forgiven."** But some of the scribes who were sitting there with us_ [were obviously agitated] _._ [I, seeing their countenance, could imagine what] _they were thinking to themselves, "What? This is blasphemy! Who but the one God can forgive sins?" Jesus_ [also] _knew, by way of his spirit, what they were reasoning in their hearts, he said to them, **"Why do you think this is blasphemy? Is it easier to say to such a paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven' or 'Get up, pick up your cot, and walk'? I will prove to you that I, the Son of Man, have the authority here on earth to forgive sins."** Then Jesus turned to the paralytic and said, **"Stand up, take your cot, and go on home."** At that, he got up, and immediately took up the cot, and walked out of the house in front of them all. The stunned onlookers then praised God, and exclaimed_ [things like] _. "We've never seen anything like this before!"_

_Another time, Jesus went out to the lakeshore and taught the crowds that gathered around him. As he walked along, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting at his tax-collection booth. **"Come, be my disciple,"** Jesus said to him. So Levi got up and followed him. Levi invited Jesus and us disciples to be his dinner guests that night, along with many of his fellow tax collectors and other notorious sinners_ [there were lots of low life in Galilee] _and they had begun to follow Jesus). But when the scribes of the Pharisees saw him eating with people like that, they_ [later] _said to us, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and_ [notorious] _sinners?" When Jesus overheard this, he told them, **"Healthy people don't need a doctor — sick people do. I have come to call, not the**_ [self-] _righteous, but sinners."_

_One day not too long after this, Jesus was going down the road out of Capernaum, and he saw man named Matthew sitting in the tax office. **"Be my follower,"** Jesus said to him. So,_ [honored to be asked,] _he immediately got up and followed him. Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to be his dinner guests that very night. They all came and also invited were fellow tax collectors and many other friends_ [who were not in any fear of being called righteous] _. They all came and ate with Jesus and us disciples. Afterwards the Pharisees in Capernaum were indignant. "Why does your teacher eat with such scum?" they asked the disciples. When Jesus overheard this, he replied to them, **"Healthy people don't need a doctor — sick people do."** Then he added, **"Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: 'I want you to be merciful; I don't want your sacrifices'; for I have come to call sinners, not those who are self-righteous."**_

_John's disciples and the Pharisees practiced fasting. One day the scribes came to Jesus and asked, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don't?" Jesus replied, **"Do the friends of the bridegroom fast while celebrating with him?--of course not. They can't fast while they are with the bridegroom. But the day is coming when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then, that day, they will fast."**_ [And Jesus continued:] _"Who would patch an old garment with un-shrunk cloth? For the new patch shrinks and pulls away from the old cloth, leaving an even bigger hole than before. And no-one puts new wine into old wineskins. The_ [new] _wine will burst the wineskins, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine needs new wineskins."_

_One Sabbath day, as Jesus was walking through some grain fields, we disciples began breaking off heads of wheat. The Pharisees_ (who were continuously observing) _said to Jesus, "They shouldn't be doing that! It's against the law to work by harvesting grain on the Sabbath." But Jesus replied, **"Haven't you ever read in the Scriptures what King David did when he and his companions were hungry? He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest), ate the special bread reserved for the priests alone, and then gave some to his companions. That was breaking the law, too."** Then he said to them, **"The Sabbath was made to benefit man; man was not made to benefit the Sabbath. Therefore I, the Son of Man, am master even of the Sabbath!"**_

_Another time, Jesus went into the synagogue and noticed a man with a deformed hand. Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus' enemies, the Pharisees, watched him closely to see whether or not he would heal the man's hand on the Sabbath? We knew that if he did, they planned to accuse him_ [of breaking the law] _. Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, **"Come and stand in front of everyone."** Then he turned to the Pharisees and asked, **"Is it legal to do good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing harm? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?"** But they wouldn't answer him. He looked around at them angrily, because he was deeply disturbed by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, **"Reach out your hand."** The man reached out his hand, and it became normal! At once the Pharisees went away_ [and we later learned] _they met with the supporters of Herod, the Herodians, to discuss plans for killing Jesus._

Jesus knew what they were planning so he left that area, and many people followed him. He healed all the sick among them, but he warned them not to say who he was. This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning him: "Look at my Servant, whom I have chosen. He is my Beloved, and I am very pleased with him. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not fight or shout; he will not raise his voice in public. He will not crush those who are weak, or quench the smallest hope, until he brings full justice with his final victory. And his name will be the hope of the entire world."

Jesus and his disciples went out to the lake, followed by a huge crowd from all over Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, from east of the Jordan River, and even from as far away as Tyre and Sidon. The news about his miracles had spread far and wide, and vast numbers of people came to see him for themselves. Jesus instructed his disciples to bring around a boat and to have it ready in case he was crowded off the beach. There had been many healings that day. As a result, many sick people were crowding around him, trying to touch him. And whenever those possessed by evil spirits caught sight of him, they would fall down in front of him shrieking, "You are the Son of God!" But Jesus strictly warned them not to say who he was.

[Some time later,] _Jesus went up on a mountain_ [with his disciples] _and called to those followers he_ [especially] _wanted and we came to him. Then he selected twelve of us, calling us apostles; to be his_ [companions] _that he would send out to preach, and would give authority to cast out demons and heal the sick. These are the names of the twelve he chose: Me, Simon (meaning listen) to which he added Peter (meaning rock) as a surname_ [thereafter I was known as Simon Peter] _; James the son of Zebedee and his brother John_ [Jesus also gave those two a new surname-Boanerges which means Sons of Thunder] _; and then Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the Cananaean), and Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed him)._

_When Jesus returned to the house where he was staying, the crowds began to gather again and demon-possessed man, who was both blind and unable to talk, was brought to Jesus. He healed the man so that he could both speak and see. The crowd_ [that gathered in the house] _was amazed. "Could it be that Jesus is the Son of David?" they wondered out loud. The crowd then pressed so that his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard what was happening, they left their home to take charge of_ [Jesus] _for they said; "He's out of his mind."_

_The scribes and Pharisees who had come down from Jerusalem agreed_ [and one of them] _said, "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Beelzebub (Satan), the prince of demons." Jesus knew their thoughts, and after calling them to him, he replied_ [directly to them with an analogy] _, **"Any kingdom at war with itself is doomed. A city or home divided against itself is doomed. And if Satan is casting out Satan, he is fighting against himself and he will not survive. If I am empowered by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, what about your own followers? They cast out demons, too, so they will judge you for what you have said. But if I am casting out demons by the spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you. You can't enter a strong man's house and rob him without first tying him up. Only then can his house be robbed! Anyone who isn't on my side opposes me; and anyone who is not gathering with me, scatters. [And then Jesus cautioned them] Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in that to come. It is an everlasting sin."** He told them this because they were saying he had an evil spirit._

[Then he gave another analogy:] _" **A tree is identified by its fruit. Make a tree good, and its fruit will be good. Make a tree bad, and its fruit will be bad. You brood of snakes! How could evil men like you speak what is good and right? For whatever is in your heart determines what you say. A good person produces good words from a good heart, and an evil person produces evil words from an evil heart. And I tell you this; you must give an account on judgment day of every idle word you speak. The words you say now reflect your fate then; either you will be justified by them or you will be condemned."**_

_Then_ [one] _of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you_ [to prove to us you are who you say you are]." _He answered,_ _"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here— and you refuse to listen to him._ **[** To you who demand a sign I say, **]** _when an evil spirit comes out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking a resting-place, but finds none. Then it says, 'I will return to the person I came from.' So it returns and finds its former home empty,_ **[** and not only **]** _swept, and clean but now adorned._ **[** Delighted, **]** _the spirit then finds seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they all enter the person so that person's condition is worse than before. That will be the experience of this evil generation."_

CHAIRMAN:

Professor Frenkel you wish to comment? Please keep it short we have run overtime and the producers want to go home,ha,ha,ha. [some groans and a smattering of applause from the audience].

PROF. FRENKEL:

I just want to point out for emphases how the situation in the ministry is changing into a battle of good verses evil through the accusation of Jesus' power coming from satanic forces; a concept supported by his own family. From this point on a dominant theme of the ministry will be a defense against this accusation through the claim Jesus makes of his authority coming from God his father. I also would like to point out it is at this time, several years in advance, that Jesus predicts his resurrection from the dead.

CHAIRMAN:

This ends the first session on the teaching of Jesus. Thank you one and all for joining us and we hope you will rejoin us tomorrow. Tomorrow's session will highlight the intriguing parables which in the opinion of many were unique literature art form unmatched to this day for their succinct qualities. A presentation surprise is also in store Sunday. Tomorrow's session will begin at ten o'clock sharp. Again thank you all and good night.

END OF FIRST SESSION (Friday)

SECOND SESSION (Saturday morning)

Imagine yourself one day later in the auditorium. The stage has been modified slightly so that there is just a single dais on the lower level below the podium. At 10:00 there is a slight dimming of the house lights and an anticipatory hush falls over the crowd while electronic specialists emerge to manage their equipment. Applause erupts as the well-known television commentator enters between the red velvet backdrop curtains. He is followed by Jonathan the actor. Robin, the chairman, goes behind the desk and remains standing while Jonathan takes his seat at the dais lower down. Jonathan, as before, has an unkempt beard and lowly Palestinian garb. The spotlight narrows and focuses in on the commentator as the house lights dim completely.]

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome everyone...those in the auditorium, especially those returning, and a welcome to our television viewers around the world! This morning The World Ecumenical Biblical Research Council is pleased to continue the symposium on a chronological harmony of the gospels from the Biblical New Testament. The council members are highly appreciative of the overwhelming reception the first session garnered around the world. Our hope is that you will enjoy today's presentation as well. We continue where we left off last evening with Jesus healing and casting out evil spirits that was followed by the satanic accusation. It is at this point that Jesus' family, mother and brothers quote-unquote, come to his residence in Capernaum. They have come to take him home because they were convinced Jesus had gone insane. It was the custom at that time for a family to do this for mentally ill family members. There were no institutions as we have them, nor were these unfortunate ones left to fend for themselves as is commonplace in the Middle East today. With that aside, Jonathan will you do the reading from Mark's gospel please.

APOSTLE PETER:

Jesus' mother and brothers arrived at the house where he was teaching. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. There was a crowd around Jesus, and someone said, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you." Jesus asked, **"Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"** Then he pointed to his disciples and said, **"These are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in the spirit realm is my brother and sister and mother!"**

CHAIRMAN:

If the producers would have allowed it, Professor Frenkel would have eagerly pointed out, as was his want, how these verses about Jesus' family affirm his contention that Jesus claimed no family genetic relationship. The good professor made mention of this in the comments on changing water into wine episode. The miraculous conception was not understood then, not even by the gospel writers apparently; and, I might add, not by many commentators and analysts today.

But now it is time for the presentation of the parables. According to Matthew's gospel, the preaching of the parables occurred the same day as the arrival of the family which makes it clear Jesus didn't succumb to family pressure. This scenario points up the fact his family had little belief he was indeed the Messiah. He obviously, being sane, refused to return to Nazareth with them because as I said we can read in Matthew: "Later that same day, Jesus left the house and went down to the shore of the sea [of Galilee]."

The format in this morning's continuation will now be quite different except for me and Jonathan [audience laughter]. We have the privilege of three talented women well known in the literary field joining me on stage. Since this session has not been rehearsed it is hoped that they will be motivated to provide comment on the subject of the presentation, the parables found in the New Testament. It has been my experience that women don't require much motivation when it comes to speaking. [Audience laughter mostly from the men present]. I can say that because, luckily, I am not an official member of the council and don't have to worry about retribution for my chauvinistic remark. Speaking of that, it is to show one and all that the council leaders are not entirely chauvinistic that we are pleased to have the fairer sex represented. So without further ado, I wish to introduce three of the female members of the World Ecumenical Biblical Research Council. Will you women please step front and center!

[The chairman turns around to greet the council members. Three women nattily dressed in business attire emerge from behind the parted curtain to an enthusiastic round of applause and take their places in front of the furniture on the stage after feigning dirty looks at the chairman. The chairman turns to face the audience while remaining standing.]

CHAIRMAN:

Standing to my left I am pleased to present DeLinda Franchtetti, Chair of the prestigious Poetry Corner at Corona University and writer of esoteric poetry acclaimed around the world. Standing to my immediate right, is Dr. Helena Rubenstine, professor of Ancient Literature at the Institute for Advanced Understanding. She has published a number of best selling books including Telling the Parables. And to my far right is Professor Celina Smith. Celina is chief editor of Harpor-Goodwin Books and a religious consultant for a number of other publications. Before that she was professor emeritus of Literature Studies at Latina Perfecto Institute Milano. Let us welcome these professionals with a good round of applause."

[The audience responds with a sustained greeting of applause initiated by the commentator who takes his seat in the chair behind the desk. Behind and above the furniture are the names of the participating council members.]

CHAIRMAN:

Ladies please be seated; we are about to begin. The council has taken the liberty of grouping most of the parables together, both those synoptically related and those scattered throughout the gospels. This has been done to make for the best reading of the parables, one that is hopefully more succinct, and without being redundant. [The commentator then looks and gestures to his stage guests] These three women have made invaluable contributions to the presentation in this regard. And now it is my pleasure to turn the spotlight over to DeLinda who will introduce this parable session.

[Moderate audience applause mostly from women; Ms. Franchtetti walks over to the podium]

PROFESSOR FRANCHTETTI:

Thank you Robin and welcome everyone. This portion of the morning's session is, as Robin indicated, devoted to a study of the parables. Before we get into that I want to state on behalf of the women on the council our reciprocal appreciation of the council as male dominated as it is. [She gives a big smile and a glance at Robin; audience applauds]. They have seriously considered our opinions and have incorporated them in their analysis and commentary of scripture some of which you heard in the previous session. They acknowledge that Jesus was especially hard on the male domination in place at his time and moreover have adopted Jesus' neutral view of the realm of God. It was refreshing to allow us to give our interpretive remarks to our male counterparts, much, if not most, of it disputed by males who are not members of the council. I have studied the scriptures for many years as part of my poetic work so it is indeed a pleasure to be given the opportunity to express my views especially from my particular perspective. The other women on the council join me in expressing our appreciation for the council's non-sexist attitude.

As was mentioned in the previous session, after the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus changed his teaching approach when it came to addressing the large crowds following him. Presumably such large crowds came because of their understandable desire to take advantage of his healing ministry. Most certainly there were those who were just spectators wanting to witness his miracles. We have heard how diverse the people's responses to Jesus' teachings were....from admiration bordering on the incredulous to outright hostility. Jesus, therefore, apparently no longer sought to teach the public on philosophical matters pertaining to life on earth and especially did not want to prematurely over antagonize the religious establishment. In part, he was evidencing his principle of not throwing pearls to the swine. He accomplished this by teaching via what we call parables. I quote from scripture itself to make this point, Matthew 13:34--35: 'Jesus used parables like these when speaking to the crowds. In fact, he never spoke to them without using such parables'. A scholar pointed out to me that this fulfilled the prophecy that said, "I will speak to you in parables. I shall speak of that hidden from the founding."' Further, it can be implied from Luke's gospel that Jesus repeated the same parables in different settings and at different times.

If we include the basic forms—similitude and metaphor—and their extended forms like parables, then over fifty forms of Jesus' picturesque speech are recorded in the New Testament. Of these, scholars claim some thirty-five or more are parables. Several have already been encountered, as for example, at the ending of the Sermon on the Mount. We don't agree on there being that many parables and we're going to consider and comment on only the most prominent and artistic of these extended forms of expression.

The word parable comes from the Greek word parabole, a form of literature used by the Greeks much prior to the time of Jesus, and which has a broader meaning than illustrative story. Jesus' parables are distinguished from the Greek and other such writings by their moral implications, clearness, purity, chasteness, importance of instruction, and simplicity. Beautifully conceived and crafted, many consider them to be an art form in themselves. They are taken mostly from the affairs of common life, and intelligible, therefore, to all people. Even after two thousand years with all the changes in our life styles, their meaning need not be lost on us. They contain much of "himself" – Jesus' philosophy, life, design in coming, and claims, and therefore should be of invaluable importance; and they are told in a style of simplicity which is intelligible to people of every age except the very young. In his parables, as in all his instructions, Jesus excelled in sublimity, and intriguing ambiguity.

The council thinks it is rather obvious that Matthew and others recorded the parables verbatim and that Peter read Matthew's transcription notes and those from others as he dictated the parables to Mark who may have translated them on the fly so to speak. Alternatively, Mark could just as well have recorded Peter's reading of the parables in Aramaic and translated them at his leisure. However the events transpired, the parables vary slightly between the gospels and we have taken the best from both including Luke's versions as mentioned before. As Luke himself states, he wrote down both from what he read and heard. Luke's versions have been considered in combining the texts if they are synoptic, the non-synoptic parables in Luke, and there are many, have not been considered nor are they presented in the symposium.

We have changed the order in which Jesus' parables are found in the Bible by featuring first the explanation Jesus gives for why he is teaching in parables to begin with; followed by two parables for which he provides an explanation to the disciples in private later. As an aside and with tongue in cheek, I might add that presumably anyone delving into the Bible to the extent we are must be considered a disciple since we are all now privy to the parable explanations by Jesus. Whatever our relationship to the "spiritual" may be; it is our hope that this presentation of the parables will stimulate renewed interest in the teachings and life model of Jesus. As the famous interpreter, William Barcley, wrote quite a number of years ago now, and I quote: "Even in [this] age when [society] knows less and less of the Bible, and care less for it, it remains true that the stories Jesus told are the best known stories in the world."

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you DeLinda. I also want add the council has chosen to have Peter, as represented by Jonathan, read the parables instead of Matthew's or John's representative and there is reason to do so as I would like to explain. After Pentecost, Matthew seems to have disappeared while Peter is predominately portrayed in Acts as going around un-intimidated and preaching the "good news". We postulate that in his preaching he may have reiterated the parables, especially those found in Mark's gospel, although there is no record of his doing so. Nonetheless it is readily apparent Peter took on the mantle of being Jesus' Rock of the early church as he was so commanded and it is in his honor that we confer this reading role. So Jonathan will you please read the continuation of the gospels.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Soon an immense crowd gathered. Jesus got into a boat and he sat down, the people stood on the beach_ [to] _listen and he told them parables. Later,_ [in private] _we disciples_ [gathered around] _and I asked him, "Why do you tell parables to the people?" Then he answered, **"You, have been given the mystery of the spirit realm, but**_ [to] _others it has not. This is why I tell parables to these people; though seeing what I do, they don't really perceive. They hear what I say, but they are not really hearing with comprehension. In them the prophecy of Isaiah is again fulfilled, which says: You people hear intently but do not understand and you see intently but not perceive; the heart of this people has been made fat, and their ears made deaf, and their eyes shut, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and with their hearts understand, convert, and be healed'. But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. I assure you, many prophets and righteous people have longed to see and hear what you have seen and heard, but they were not able to. Whoever lays hold will be given more and will have it in abundance, but those who do not lay hold, even what they have will be taken away from them."_

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Jonathan; Helena wishes to interrupt the reading with a comment.

PROFESSOR RUBENSTINE:

Sorry Jonathan, but I am compelled to interrupt because what you just read is at the heart of Jesus' ministry. I wish to emphasize the importance for the benefit of audience if I am able to. To help, I have prepared a slide.

[A large projection screen drops down in front of the curtains and the following verse is displayed:]

Matthew chapter 13 verse 11

The disciples said unto him , "Why in parables speak thou unto them [the people]?"

Jesus answered and said unto them:

" _Because to you it has been given to know the mysteries_

_of the realm of the heavens_ [God]

_But to those_ [people ] _it has not been given."_

[Professor Rubenstine reads the screen out loud and then continues]

I am sort of reluctant to point out that what Jesus says here is not among the reasons DeLinda gave in her opening remarks....nothing is said of "pearls before swine" or "antagonizing Jews". He simply says the "mysteries" of God's realm has not been given to them. The problem is we are not sure what Jesus meant by the word "mysteries".

PROFESSOR FANCHETTI:

Oh my goodness Helena you are so right! I didn't realize I was committing a common "sin" of analysts that I am so critical of myself...that is saying something about Jesus' ministry that is not supported by what he himself says about it. It sure is easy to do. Sorry about that!

PROFESSOR RUBENSTINE:

Yes, we all must very careful, I can be guilty of that myself; I think use of qualifiers like "this is speculative" would help. Part of the problem here is Jesus' answer to the question of why he speaks in parables is not easy to understand and translations vary because of it. The answer shown on the screen is based on Matthew's account (from the Greek). In Mark's parallel account the words "to know" are omitted (words that aren't helpful anyway). Luke's version is almost identical to Matthew's. Jesus' answer seems in itself to be mysterious. Common interpretations of Jesus' answer imply that the Apostles were given secret access to understanding; some translations go so far as to substitute "secret" for "mysterious". Some commentators take it this further saying this secret "knowledge" extended beyond the Apostles to the early church, and a few say it extends only to "sincere believers" today. We counter that with the obvious lack of understanding of the 'sowing' and 'weed' parables by the Apostles which is evident in the next disciple discourse to be read. How can it be that the disciples were given secrets withheld from "others" when Jesus says just the opposite...what has been hidden will be revealed etc. with ambiguous reference to himself? The difficulty in understanding Jesus' meaning is underscored by some professional commentators giving short shift or even ignoring this episode altogether.

What then did Jesus mean? What were the Apostles given that the people were not? It needs to be said again...translation is not an exact science. We do not have the exact words spoken by Jesus. Matthew wrote down what he thought he heard. Knowledgeable Jews translated Matthew's Aramaic into Greek as best they could as we heard in the previous session. The Matthew exposition is mostly duplicated in Luke with the exception of the word 'because'. We have left out the word 'knowledge' found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark...it can be viewed as somewhat redundant. It is possible that the word translated 'knowledge' has a more ephemeral connotation more akin to 'mind' or 'heart'. I suggest and I emphasize "suggest" that in some transcendental way Jesus himself was given as a mystery to the heart-minds of the Apostles. Jesus himself states how exclusive the calling of the twelve was.....the "longing of the prophets and righteous". Only those twelve were "called" by Jesus; whatever "called" means.

Was Jesus part of the "mysteries" given only to his disciple? Some claim we, by that I mean we Christians, are called in some manner usually in reference to being religious professionals. I personally doubt that...I think what happened to the twelve can never be duplicated again....that we nominal Christians are more closely identified with "the others". We heard just a short time ago that Jesus even gave new surnames to his three closest Apostles.

We have the benefit of two interpretations of parables by Jesus, but beyond that, parable ephemeral meaning to us depends on our individual synthesis in our spiritual selves---what ever that means. I think we must be careful in accepting the interpretations of religious professionals and I am no exception.

CHAIRMAN:

DeLinda you wish to comment?

PROFESSOR FRANCHTETTI:

Yes Robin I would; and thank you for your good try Helena, I agree with much of what you said. My view is that in the end we must let interpretation of the parables be an emotional 'thing' we 'feel' since our vocabulary is not sufficient to express the supernatural or spiritual any more now than it was for Jesus. To point out the difficulty I would like to explore further what Helena started. I have done much study on the Old Testament and I agree with those scholars who have recently posited a different interpretation of Isaiah which Jesus references in his explanation that Jonathan read from Peter's version. It is interesting that Jesus softens what Isaiah is quoted as saying in the Old Testament. Let's compare the two versions.

Isaiah chapter 8

You people indeed hear but do not understand, and you indeed see but do not perceive.

**Make** the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes shut; lest they see with

their eyes, and with their ears hear, and with their heart understand; convert and be healed.

Matthew chapter 13 (Jesus)

This prophecy by Isaiah is having fulfillment [in this people now]

[Though] hearing you will hear not [neither] will you comprehend;

and you will look and still not see. For the heart of this people **was made** thick,

so that they closed their ears and eyes; and never hearing or seeing,

their heart cannot comprehend so that they might turn back (repent) and I shall heal them

Compare the words set out in bold in the slide. Some comment may help. The English translation of the Isaiah criticism of the Jewish crowd which was listening to him is harsh and has caused commentators anguish over the centuries. Indicative of this is the various renderings of these Isaiah verses found in contemporary Bible translations. Strict interpretation would lead one to think Isaiah is commanding God to make the people have 'fat' hearts, shut eyes and ears. Jesus on the other hand puts it in the past tense without giving the cause per se. Contemporary analysts now view Isaiah has having used a common Jewish idiom of that era where a negative cultural syndrome of the past is spoken of as having been caused. Isaiah suffered his people's rejection all of his life long ministry....symbolically the Old Testament states...for forty years. The people were satisfied with their way of life and didn't want to change anymore than did most of the Jews of Jesus day. Isaiah accused them of having 'fat' hearts. In modern physiological terminology a 'fat' heart is a diseased heart. Some Bible translation read 'hard' or 'calloused'....not in the best spiritual condition in any case. These are wonderful metaphors for people who have trouble paying attention to their spiritual welfare. But it was not the spiritual realm causing them to act in this manner although a strict reading of Isaiah would make it seem so. What about our own time? Do we have 'fat' hearts as a society as Isaiah claimed for his? Possibly I think. And does God make it happen? We don't think so!

CHAIRMAN:

Celina you wish to interject something?

PROFESSOR SMITH:

Yes! I don't want to miss the opportunity to point out that in the Isaiah passages following the passages being considered on the slide, Isaiah prophesies that his spiritually bankrupt people will be subjected to further dispersion worse than experienced with the Babylonian conquest. Ironically, this tragic dispersion predicted by Isaiah, which really did happen, provided the means for the rapid expansion of Jesus' teachings centuries later. We will revisit this phenomenon at the end of the symposium. As is often quoted: "God, or the spiritual realm, moves in mysterious ways". Viewed in this light, Jesus' ambiguity here further juxtaposes Israel's past with Jesus' future much like the way Jesus "used" Judas.

PROFESSOR RUBENSTINE:

Good point Celina. Returning to the slide, I think the synoptic verses found in Mark and Luke is even more off base because of the use of the word 'may' in their versions. That word "may" seems to make it appear that Jesus is doing it on purpose. This is, of course, contrary to Jesus' stated purpose of being the "savior of all people (nations)", or again, not that one man may be lost, or, in the parable of the lost sheep. We can think of no reasonable excuse for why Mark's and Luke's versions seem to put Jesus in a bad light. Perhaps other scholars will want to weigh in with their reasoning.

PROFESSOR SMITH:

Possibly Jesus is forewarning the disciples not to be overly expectant of their society's reception of his teaching. It is mankind's sinful nature, not God's (or Jesus') desire for it, that causes rejection. Sinfulness is often represented in the Bible as a disease, and the pardon and recovery of the soul from sin as "healing." Jesus had several motives in mind for performing healings one of them being this spiritual analog....the healing of "fat" or hard, or calloused hearts. Anther possibility---Jesus is lamenting people's stubbornness as he did when he wept over Jerusalem. We can come up with these possibilities, but in the end we don't know for sure.

PROFESSOR FRANCHTETTI:

Yes. A more compassionate reading of Isaiah would be like this: "You will hear again and again, but you will not comprehend; you will see again and again, but you will not perceive. For the spiritual hearts of the people are diseased, they block their ears, close their eyes; otherwise their eyes might perceive, their ears understand, and their hearts open and comprehend; then they could repent and I could heal them (spiritually)." It is helpful to link this with what Jesus told Nicodemus....be born again. If we are wise in spirit then we humbly repent and our spirit selves can be re-vitalized or be reborn. Jesus makes it clear this is not a physical manifestation or an earthly happening...it is metaphysical...a happening in mind, heart, and soul.

We emphasize the "spirituality" of Jesus' teaching in the symposium by explicitly putting the word spirituality in the text. Also, I think the word "understand"' could be broadened to mean interest in the spiritual because if we ignore the spiritual murmurings in our hearts due to devaluing them, then the little that does exist there is lost. This nurturing of the spiritual is, I feel, intrinsic to the parables. Luke 8:18 puts it even more esoterically where it says those that delude themselves into just thinking they have spirituality will lose it. This is a principle of immense importance, and, like other weighty sayings, is uttered by Jesus on more than one occasion, and in different connotations. As a great ethical principle, we see it in operation by which moral principles become stronger by being exercised. Here Jesus puts the principle in an enveloping spiritual context; a divine ordination.

PROFESSOR SMITH:

I would like to add one further comment. We don't want to ignore the warning Jesus gives in this explanation where he says: "But to those who do not [strive to understand], even what they have will be taken away from them". The importance of this warning is underscored because it is repeated in another parable....I'm going to steal some of Jonathon's thunder here by quoting this second warning: **"and he further said to us: 'be perceptive in what you are hearing, to the extent you are measured, comprehension will be measured to you and will be added to you. Whoever is having, more will be given to them, and whoever is not having, whatever they have will be taken from them'".** This is considered to be a proverbial expression by some commentators. It might be rendered more contemporarily as: You shall be treated according to the use you make of your opportunities of learning. If you strive to consider it well, and make a good improvement in your knowledge of the spiritual by what you hear, you shall be well rewarded. If not, your reward shall be small. You may even be in danger of losing the little that you have. Jesus reiterated the importance of this message; Jonathan would you read the verses about the lamp.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Then Jesus asked us, **"Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed to shut out the light? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine. Not forever is it hidden, in order that it should be manifested, but neither became it carefully concealed, in order that it should come into manifest. Anyone who is has ears to hear let them listen."** And he further said to us: **"be perceptive in what you are hearing, in what extent**_ [of trying to understand] _you are measuring_ [or paying attention] _, comprehension will be measured to you and will be added to you_ [to your knowledge] _. Whoever is having_ [perception] _, more_ [spiritual knowledge] _will be given to them, and whoever is not having_ [perception] _, whatever_ [spiritual knowledge] _they are having will be taken from them."_

PROFESSOR SMITH:

It may not be obvious as we hear the text, but in written format one can readily see the additions we have made to convey a more explicit, and we hope, more accurate meaning then what scripture provides. I think it is obvious that Jesus, in saying not forever hidden or not being carefully concealed, but instead become "manifest", is referring to himself. Cleverly stated! And I need to point out that this clever saying is found in the Greek texts. In some of the popular English translations we have examined this clever reference is missed and the translations read "out into the open, etc." instead of manifest. This true for even the most accurate translations!

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Celina and thank you ladies! But I think it best that we move on. Jonathan, please continue with the reading of the parables.

APOSTLE PETER:

And so Jesus told many parables to the crowds such as this one: **"A sower went out to plant some seed. As he was broadcasting, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The plants sprang up quickly, but they soon wilted beneath the hot sun and died because the roots had no nourishment in the shallow soil. Other seeds fell among thorns that shot up and choked the plants so they could not mature. But some seeds fell on fertile soil and produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted. Let him that can hear, listen."**

_Then, leaving the crowds outside, Jesus went_ [back] _into the house._ [We went in with him and there in privacy I asked him to explain what the sower parable meant] _. Jesus said to_ [us] _, **"you don't understand this parable; how**_ [then] _will you understand all the parables? The seed that fell on the hard path represents those who hear my words but don't comprehend it. Then the evil one comes and snatches the seed away from their hearts. The rocky soil represents those who hear my words and receive it with joy. But like young plants in such soil, their roots don't go very deep. At first they believe, but they fall away as soon as they have problems or are persecuted because they acted on their belief. The thorny ground represents those who hear and accept the word, but all too quickly the cares of this life, the lure of wealth and material things, crowds out the word so no crop is produced. The good soil represents the hearts of those who hear the word, comprehend it, and produce a huge harvest — thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been sown."_

CHAIRMAN:

O.K. Helena...here we go again.

PROFESSOR RUBENSTINE:

Robin, I apologize again to Jonathan for interrupting, but my compulsive personality demands that I interrupt! [audience laughter]. I suspect I am extra egotistical besides.

You know there has been extensive analysis of this parable and Jesus' explanation. But none of these "analyses" point out what I think is a remarkable feature of Jesus' explanation. If we didn't have the original parable wouldn't we think that Jesus' explanation is another parable? What is Jesus alluding to in the word "yield"? Without a definitive explanation of "yield" doesn't it remain a parable Hasn't he interpreted the sower parable with yet another parable? If so what is the significance? The same thing can be done with Jesus' explanation of the weed parable.

CHAIRMAN:

Anyone care to comment? [silence] Well it seems to be no different now than when you brought this up to the council. The council members didn't know what to make of it then and still don't. It's too deep for me that's for sure. Maybe we should go on to the weed parable.....Jonathan.

APOSTLE PETER:

Then Jesus told the crowd this parable: **"The spiritual realm is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and over sowed darnel among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and started to produce grain, the darnel weeds also appeared [alongside]. So the hired workers of the landowner came and told him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Because it is full of darnel!' 'An enemy, a man, did this!' [the owner exclaimed]. They asked him, 'Shall we go and pull out the weeds?' He replied, 'No, you'll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest; then I will tell the harvesters to bundle up the weeds and burn them, and then gather up the wheat into my storehouse."**

Then I said, "Please explain the story of the weeds in the field." In response he said, **"The one sowing the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed represents those who belong to the spiritual realm. The weeds are those who belong to the evil one. The enemy who planted the weeds among the wheat is Satan. The harvest-time is the end of this age, and the harvesters are angels. Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will remove from his realm those that cause stumbling and those that do lawlessness. The angels will throw them into the fiery furnace and there is where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous ones left in the realm will shine brightly like the sun. Let those who hear, listen!"**

CHAIRMAN:

Well Helena you told the council this explanation was again another parable...would you like to...

PROFESSOR FRANCHTETTI:

Well I wasn't going to but since you insist. In my opinion we are left uncomfortably in the dark as to what Jesus means by the words "good seed" (in the Greek it is "fine" seed) in the sense of what is the spiritual realm (or kingdom)". At the end of the parable it is the "kingdom of the "father".

So is that not another parable or what? [silence]

CHAIRMAN:

I guess we will have to leave it at that Helena. Perhaps with munching and meditating on this, something will come of it in the future. Thank you Helena.....Oh wait...DeLinda!

PROFESSOR FRANCETTI:

I don't have a deep thought on Dr. Rubenstine's remarkable finding, but if it is indeed the case of nested parables, then I think it reinforces what I said earlier...in the end we must let parable interpretation be an emotional 'thing' we 'feel' since our vocabulary is not sufficient to express the supernatural or spiritual any more now than it was for Jesus.

PROFESSOR SMITH:

In this vein, speaking of the supernatural, the weed "darnel" requires explanation. It is an uncommon weed. Before maturity it is very difficult to distinguish from wheat from which some believe it degenerated. It only grows in a cultivated field....an interesting and unique characteristic. I'm not sure if these characteristics have theological implications or not. Is this a random mutation of nature or a carefully and intentional divine act by the spiritual realm so that Jesus could use it in a parable? I just wonder that's all.

CHAIRMAN:

They probably do have implications, but I freely admit I am not the one to explain. I think it is best if we continue with the remaining parables.

APOSTLE PETER:

Jesus also said to us: **"And so it is with the Kingdom of God. A sower sowed seeds on the earth and then he went on with his other activities. As the days went by, the seeds sprouted and grew; the sower really does not know how this happens. On its own, the earth produces fruit; first a leaf blade pushes through, next the stalk, then the head, and finally the full grain in the head. But it is then, when the grain is ripe, that the man appears again, to harvest it with a sickle."**

Next, Jesus said to us **"How might we liken the spiritual realm or what parable might we use? It is like a tiny mustard seed. Though this is one of the smallest of seeds, it grows to become the largest vegetable with long branches where birds can come and find shelter."**

_He used many such parables in bringing the word_ [to us and] _to the people, as_ [long] _as_ [we and] _they were able to listen. Jesus also used stories and illustrations like these when speaking to the crowds. In fact, he never spoke to them without using parables. This fulfilled the prophecy that said, "I will speak to you in parables. I will explain mysteries hidden since the creation of the world."_

[Jesus also used these similes]: _"The spirit realm is like yeast used by a woman making bread. Even though she used a large amount of flour, the yeast permeated every part of the dough."_

"The spirit realm is like a treasure that a man discovered hidden in a field. In his excitement, he hid it again and sold everything he owned to get enough money to buy the field — and to get the treasure, too!

" _Again, the spirit realm is like a pearl merchant on the lookout for choice pearls. When he discovered a pearl of great value, he sold everything he owned and bought it!"_

" _ **Again, the Spirit Realm is like a fishing net that is thrown into the water and gathers fish of every kind. When the net is full, they drag it up onto the shore, sit down, sort the good fish into crates, and throw the bad ones away. That is the way it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and separate the wicked people from the godly, throwing the wicked into the fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."** **"Do you understand all this?,"** Jesus asked his disciples "Yes," they said, "we do."_

Then he added, **"Every teacher of religious law who has become a disciple in the Spirit Realm is like a person who brings out of the storehouse the new teachings as well as the old."**

"If a shepherd has one hundred sheep, and one wanders away and is lost, what will he do? Won't he leave the ninety-nine others and go out into the hills to search for the lost one? And if he finds it, he will surely rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn't wander away!

[Then Jesus told us this parable:] _"_ [In] _the Spirit Realm_ [it] _is like the owner of an estate who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work. At nine o'clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. At noon and again around three o'clock he did the same thing. At five o'clock that evening he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, 'Why haven't you been working today?' They replied, 'Because no one hired us.' The owner of the estate told them, 'Then go on out and join the others in my vineyard.' That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o'clock were paid, each received a full day's wage. When those hired earlier came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day's wage. When they received their pay, they protested, 'Those people worked only one hour, and yet you've paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.' He answered one of them, 'Friend, I haven't been unfair! Didn't you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take it and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be angry because I am kind?' And so it is, that many who are first now will be last then; and those who are last now will be first then."_

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Jonathan, and thank you ladies for your challenging commentaries on the parables. We will encounter more parables later on that are more story like and directed at specific Jewish attitudes. However I need to mention not all the parables found in the gospels will be read in the symposium due to time constraints. Speaking of time, the time has come for a short break so you all can stand up, stretch, and do other things while the stage is returned to its original configuration.

[The chairman, Jonathan, and the women speakers leave the stage to audience applause]

SECOND SESSION SATURDAY MORNING

[The house lights dim as the chairman, actors and council members enter the stage to a round of applause]

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you one and all; we all are back once again. And we find Jesus still in Capernaum and still surrounded by crowds of people. Weary of it all Jesus decides to go for a boat ride. Jonathan will tell us about what happens next.

APOSTLE PETER:

W _hen evening came, Jesus said to his disciples, **"let us go over to the other side."**_ [But before we could get in the boat,] _one of the scribes said to him, "Teacher, I will follow you no matter where you go!" But Jesus said, **"Foxes have dens to live in, and birds have nests, but I, the Son of Man, have no home of my own in which to lay my head."** Then another one of his disciples said, "Lord, first let me_ [take leave so I can] _bury my father." But Jesus told him, **"You are to follow me; let those who are dead bury their dead."**_

_Then Jesus got into the boat just as he was and the disciples, after dismissing the crowd,_ [clambered aboard and shoved off] _. There_ [was not enough room for all the disciples in Jesus' boat,] _so other boats were necessary. As we sailed, Jesus,_ [exhausted,] _fell asleep. Suddenly, without warning, a terrible storm came up, with waves breaking into the boat. But Jesus was in the stern on a cushion in a_ [deep] _sleep._ [I] _went and woke him up, shouting, "Teacher save us! We're going to drown!" Jesus stood up and rebuked the wind and waves, and suddenly it was calm. Then Jesus asked, **"Why are you afraid? Do you still have so little faith?"** We men were al_l [even more terrified and filled with awe and] _amazed and I asked myself "What kind of man is this person? Even the wind and waves obey him!"_

_We arrived at the other side of the lake, in the land of the Gerasenes. A man possessed by evil spirits met_ [us] _. This man lived among the tombs_ [in a graveyard we had happened upon] _and could not be restrained, even with a chain. Whenever he was put into chains and shackles — as he often was — he snapped the chains from his wrists and smashed the shackles. No one was strong enough to control him. All day long and throughout the night, he would wander among the tombs and in the hills, screaming and slashing himself with_ [sharp] _stones. While we were still offshore, the man had seen Jesus and had run to meet him. Just as Jesus was climbing from the boat, the man fell down before him and gave a terrible scream, "Why are you bothering me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I swore an oath by God for you not to come and torment me!" Jesus had already said to the spirits, **"Come out of the man, you evil spirits."** Then Jesus asked, **"What is your name?"** And the_ [man] _replied, "Legion, because there are many spirits here inside_ [me] _." Then the spirits begged him again and again not to send them to the_ [abyss (or void)] _. There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby. "Send us into those pigs," the evil spirits begged. Jesus gave them permission. So the evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of two thousand pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake, where they drowned. The herdsmen fled to the nearby city and the surrounding countryside, spreading the news as they ran; and the people came_ [out of curiosity.] _A crowd soon gathered around Jesus, but they became frightened when they saw the man who had been demon possessed, for he was sitting there fully clothed and perfectly sane. The pig herders who had seen what happened to the man and to the pigs, returned and told the people about what had transpired; as a consequence, the crowd began pleading with Jesus to go away and leave them alone. When Jesus got back into the boat, the man who had been demon possessed begged to go along. But Jesus said, **"No, go home to your friends, and tell them what wonderful things the Lord has done for you and how merciful he has been."** So the man started off for the Decapolis and began to tell everyone about the great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed at what he told them._

_When_ [we took] _Jesus back across the lake to the other side, a large crowd gathered around him on the shore. The chief presiding officer of the local synagogue, whose name was Jairus, came and fell down before him, pleading with him to heal his little daughter. "She is about to die," he said in desperation. "Please come and place your hands on her; heal her so she can live." So Jesus went with him and the crowd thronged behind and even pressed against Jesus._

[I noticed a] _woman in that crowd_ [and I later learned] _the woman had had a flow of blood for twelve years. She had suffered much pain in dealing with many doctors through the years and had spent everything she had to pay them, but she had gotten no better. In fact, she was worse. She had heard about Jesus;_ [and as I watched] _she came up behind him through the crowd and touched the fringe of his robe. She had thought to herself over and over, "If I can just touch his clothing, I will be healed." Immediately, the hemorrhage had stopped, and she could feel that she had been healed from her scourge_ (because of which the Jews held her in such great contempt). _Jesus realized at once that healing power had gone out from him, so he turned around in the crowd and asked, **"Who touched my robe?"**_ [I] _said to him, "All this crowd is pressing around you. How can you ask, 'Who touched me?'" But he kept on looking around to see who had done it. Then the frightened woman, trembling at the realization of what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and told him truthfully what she had done. And he said to her, " **Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace, you are freed from your scourge".**_

_While he was still speaking to her, men arrived from Jairus' home with the message, "Your daughter is dead. There's no use troubling the Teacher now." But Jesus overheard them delivering their message and said to Jairus, **"Don't be afraid. Just trust me."** Then Jesus stopped the crowd and wouldn't let anyone go with him except me, James, and John._ [After walking a while,] _we came to the home of the synagogue leader. There was a great deal of commotion and the weeping and wailing_ [of the paid mourners] _. We went inside and Jesus spoke to the crowd of people there. **"Why all this weeping and noisy confusion?"** he asked. **"The child isn't dead; she is only asleep."** The crowd laughed at him scornfully, so he told all of them to go outside. Then he took the girl's father and mother and we disciples into the room where the girl was lying. Holding her hand, he said to her in Aramaic **"Talita qumi!"** which when translated means "little girl, arise!" And the girl, who was twelve years old, immediately stood up and walked around! Her parents were absolutely overwhelmed. Jesus repeatedly commanded them not to tell anyone what had happened, and then he told them to give her something to eat._

PROF. AGAISTER:

This passage, as found in Mark, provides an example of interpolation in the corresponding account found in Matthew. In the account just read it states only the disciples Peter, James, and John were allowed to follow Jesus into the house which is confirmed in Luke's account. Obviously Matthew would not have been able to witness what happened inside the house yet his account reads like an eye witness. It is our contention, that sometime after Matthew's original notes were transcribed and translated, Peter's rendition was added to Matthew's gospel "to make it complete". Perhaps this happened after Mark's account surfaced.

CHAIRMAN:

That is interesting Joe, but Matthew appears to have been undeterred because his account of the scenario continues as Michael will tell us. This scenario continuation is found only in Matthew.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

After Jesus left the girl's home, two blind men followed along behind him, shouting, "Son of David, have mercy on us!" They went right into the house where he was staying, and Jesus asked them, **"Do you believe I can make you see?"** "Yes, Lord," they told him, "we do." Then he touched their eyes and said, **"Because of your faith, it will happen."** And suddenly they could see! Jesus sternly warned them, **"Don't tell anyone about this."** But instead, they spread his fame all over the region. When they left, some people brought to him a man who couldn't speak because he was possessed by a demon. So Jesus cast out the demon, and instantly the man could talk. The crowds marveled. "Nothing like this has ever happened in Israel!" they exclaimed. But the Pharisees said, "He can cast out demons because he is empowered by the prince of demons."

Jesus [and we disciples] traveled through all the cities and villages of that area, teaching in the synagogues and announcing the Good News about the Spirit Realm. And wherever he went, he healed people of every sort of disease and illness. He felt great pity for the crowds that came, because their problems were so great and they didn't know where to go for help. They were like sheep without a shepherd. He said to us disciples, **"The harvest is so great, but the workers are so few. So pray to the Lord-God who is in charge of the harvest; ask him to send out more workers for his fields.**

CHAIRMAN:

With that we conclude this morning's session. We will return in one hour to continue with a scenario taken from John's eyewitness account. Have a pleasant lunch break everyone!

ONE HOUR INTERMISSION

INTERMISSION ENDS—SATURDAY AFTERNOON SESSION BEGINS

CHAIRMAN:

Hello everyone and welcome back. The producers have informed me via my smart teleport that is built into this desk away from prying eyes that we must start to skip certain events or we won't finish until next week end. Ha ha ha. Professor Frenkel if you would be so kind as to jump over to where you left off in the Nazareth synagogue story please.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Alright. The second part, where Jesus is rejected, finds counterparts in Matthew chapter 13, verses 54-58 and in Mark chapter 6, verses 1 to 5. However the expanded story is found only in the continuation by Luke.

Then, Jesus left that part of the country and returned with his disciples to Nazareth, his hometown. The next Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They asked, "Where did he get all his wisdom and the power to perform miracles? "How can this be?" they asked. "He's just Joseph's son, the carpenter, and the son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus said, **"Probably you will quote me that proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself' — meaning, 'Why don't you do miracles here in your hometown like those you did in Capernaum?' But the truth is a prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family. Certainly there were many widows in Israel who needed help in Elijah's time, when there was no rain for three and a half years and hunger stalked the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them. He was sent instead to a widow of Zarephath — a foreigner in the land of Sidon. Or think of the prophet Elisha, who healed Naaman, a Syrian, rather than the many lepers in Israel who needed help."** When they heard this, the people in the synagogue were furious. Jumping up, they mobbed him and took him to the edge of the hill on which the city was built. They intended to push him over the cliff, but he slipped away through the crowd and left them. Because of their unbelief, he couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Anton. We next turn to another event marker...the sending out of the twelve apostles. The account is found in all three synoptic gospels and the accounts have been merged. Michael will give the combined reading as we have it."

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_Then Jesus_ [again] _went teaching from village to village._ [At one point] _he called_ [we] _twelve_ [apostles] _to him and sent us two by two, with authority to cast out evil spirits and with these instructions: **"Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the people of Israel — God's lost sheep. Go and announce to them that the spirit realm is near. Heal the sick, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received! Whenever you enter a city or village, search for a worthy man and stay in his home until you leave for the next town. When you are invited into someone's home, give it your blessing. If a village doesn't welcome you or listen to you, shake off the dust of that place from your feet as you leave. I assure you, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off on the judgment day than that place will be. Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Be as wary as snakes and harmless as doves. He told us to carry nothing except a walking stick — no food, no traveler's bag, no money – and bound on sandals but not two under garments."** So we_ [set] _out, telling all we met about_ [Jesus and his teachings] _in order that they might repent. And we cast out many demons and healed many sick people_ [by] _anointing them with oil._

CHAIRMAN:

What follows is an account from the synoptic gospels which in our opinion is not an eye witness account by the three apostles we are representing in the symposia since they were not present. Jesus has just sent all the apostles out on their missionary journey and, by Mark's account, don't return until after the death of John the Baptist. Those who remain are disciples not apostles as the text states. The reading to be heard, we suggest, was an eye witness account written down by an 'anonymous scribe' or disciple, perhaps the one we are so fond of. [audience snickers amid mild applause]. Michael will give the reading pretending to be Levi if you don't mind since Levi was also a tax collector and his outfit is appropriate. Those who maintain Levi and Matthew were the same individual won't mind our conflating the two in the presentation...so Michael if you will continue please."

(Michael: Would you like me to use a different voice? [Audience laughter])

CHAIRMAN:

No that won't be necessary Michael, but thank you for the humorous relief.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

When Jesus had finished giving these instructions to his twelve disciples, he went off teaching and preaching in towns throughout the country. John the Baptist, who was now in prison, heard about all the things that Jesus was doing. So he sent his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you really the Messiah we've been waiting for, or should we keep looking for someone else?" Jesus told them, **"Go back to John and tell him about what you have heard and seen — the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, and the Good News is being preached to the poor. And tell him: 'God blesses those who are not offended by me.'"** When John's disciples had gone, Jesus began talking about him to the crowds. **"Who is this man in the wilderness that you went out to see? Did you find him weak as a reed, moved by every breath of wind? Or were you expecting to see a man dressed in expensive clothes? Those who dress like that live in palaces, not out in the wilderness. Were you looking for a prophet? Yes, and he is more than a prophet. John is the man to whom the Scriptures refer when they say, 'Look, I am sending my messenger before you, and he will prepare your way before you.' I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the most insignificant person in the Spirit Realm is greater than he is! And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Spirit Realm has been forcefully advancing, and violent people attack it. For before John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward to this present time. And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come. Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!**

How shall I describe this generation? These people are like a group of children playing a game in the public square. They complain to their friends, 'We played wedding songs, and you weren't happy, so we played funeral songs, but you weren't sad.' For John the Baptist didn't drink wine and he often fasted, and you say, 'He's demon possessed.' And I, the Son of Man, feast and drink, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners!' But wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it."

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities where he had done most of his miracles, because they hadn't turned from their sins and turned to God. **"What horrors await you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have sat in deep repentance long ago, clothed in sackcloth and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse. I assure you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on the judgment day than it will be for you! And you people of Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to the place of the dead. For if the miracles I did for you had been done in Sodom, it would still be here today. I assure you, Sodom will better off on the judgment day than it will be for you."**

Then Jesus said, **"Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke fits easily, and the burden I give you is light."**

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Michael. Next we come to another time marker...the beheading of John the Baptist reported in the three synoptic gospels. As mentioned earlier, the council places the killing of the Baptist in the 29--30AD time frame as do others. Since the beheading scenario in these texts is by unknown witnesses and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus we have left it out of the presentation and we give just a summary of what Mark contains. Benjamin will give this summary and then continue with Peter's eyewitness.

APOSTLE PETER:

Herod Antipas, the king, soon heard about Jesus, because people everywhere were talking about him. Some were saying, "This must be John the Baptist come back to life again. That is why he can do such miracles." Others thought Jesus was the ancient prophet Elijah. Still others thought he was a prophet like the other great prophets of the past. When Herod heard about Jesus, he said, "John, the man I beheaded, has come back from the dead."

[It was after Herod had had John beheaded and his disciples had buried him in a memorial tomb, that we returned to Jesus from our ministry tour and] _gathering around Jesus, we told him all we had done and what we had taught. Then Jesus said, **"Let's get away from the crowds for a while and rest."** There were so many people coming and going_ [with demanding requests] _that we didn't even have time to eat. So we left by boat for a solitary place. But many people saw us leaving, and people from many towns ran ahead along the shore and met us as we landed. A vast crowd was there as Jesus stepped from the boat, and he had compassion on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he started to teach them many things_ [with his parables] _. But by then it was late in the afternoon and I came to Jesus and said, "This is a desolate place, and it is getting late. Should we send the crowds away so they can go to the nearby farms and villages and buy themselves some food?" But in reply he said_ [to us disciples now gathered around him] _, **"You give them something to eat."** "With what?" Philip asked. "It will take a small fortune to buy food for all this crowd! Are we to_ [take that much out of the treasury] _and go off and buy enough loaves of bread to feed them?" In return Jesus asked **"How many loaves do we have with us**? **" "Go and find out."** After we found out we came back and Andrew, my brother, reported, "We have five loaves and two fish." Then Jesus directed us to have the people recline on the green grass; and so we had them recline in groups of fifty or a hundred. Jesus took the five loaves and two fish, looked up toward heaven, and gave thanks. Breaking the loaves into pieces, he kept giving the bread and fish to us to give to the people and they all ate as much as they wanted. Afterwards we picked up twelve baskets of leftover scraps not counting the remains of fish._ [Just counting men alone] _the number that had eaten was five thousand!_

CHAIRMAN:

Professor Agaister you wish to comment?

PROF. AGAISTER:

Yes. This amazing event, the feeding of five thousand, counting men only, seems to have left a bigger impression on the disciples than all the previous supernatural doings of Jesus since it is the first event all four evangelists write about. By evangelists I mean Matthew, Peter (via Mark), Luke and John. John doesn't appear to be much affected by miracle stories; he doesn't mention the miraculous feeding of the four thousand which happened not too much later. However, there isn't much that all four evangelists do comment on in common. Interestingly enough, the next episode that all four do comment on is Jesus' discourse on divorce. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem and Peter's denial also receive an account by all four. None of these are miracle events. Let's get back to the narrative.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Immediately after this, Jesus insisted that we get back into the boat and head out across the lake toward Bethsaida without him, while he himself sent the people home. After bidding the crowd farewell we saw him head up into the mountains_ [presumably] _to pray. During the night, we were in our boat out in the middle of the lake, and Jesus was alone on land._ [This is my best guess as to how it must have happened.] _Jesus could_ [either] _see_ [or somehow knew we were in serious trouble, even losing headway despite] _our rowing hard in a struggle against the wind and waves. About three o'clock in the morning (the forth watch) he came_ [from shore] _walking about on the sea. He even started to go past us_ [pretending not to see us] _, but when I saw him walking on the water, I screamed thinking I saw an apparition. We were all terrified because we all saw him. But Jesus spoke to us at once. **"Take courage**_ [it's all right] _ **,"** he said. **"I am! Don't be afraid."** Then he climbed into the boat, and the wind stopped._ [We] _were astonished.]._ [We didn't perceive the significance of the miracle of] _the multiplied loaves,_ [let alone what had just happened] _, for our hearts were_ [still impaired] _._

PROF. AGAISTER:

John does comment on this miraculous walking on water while Luke for some reason does not. On this episode John is agreement with Peter (via Mark) and against Matthew's version which has Peter also walking on water (at least for a short while). We are led to believe this to be another interpolation in the gospel of Matthew.

APOSTLE PETER:

_When we arrived at Gennesaret on the other side of the lake, we anchored the boat nearby and climbed out. The people that were there recognized him at once, and they ran throughout the whole area spreading the news and people began carrying sick people on cots to where they heard he was._ [And so it was] _, wherever he went, — in villages, or cities, or even out in the countryside; — they laid the sick in the market plazas. The sick begged him to let them at least touch the fringe of his robe, and all who touched it were healed. Now_ [a number of] _Pharisees and some teachers of religious law arrived from Jerusalem to confront Jesus. They noticed that some of the disciples,_ [me in particular] _, failed to follow their ritual of hand washing before eating. (All the Jews, especially the Pharisees, do not eat until they wash their hands up to the elbows, as required by their ancient traditions. Similarly, they eat nothing bought from the market unless they sprinkle themselves with water. This is but one of many traditions they cling to — such as their ceremonial washing_ [or baptism] _of cups, pitchers, and copper kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of religious law asked him, "Why do your disciples go about without following our age-old traditions? We see they eat with defiled hands." Jesus replied, **"Isaiah well prophesied about you hypocrites because it is written that he said, 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. Their worship of me is in vain, because they teach as dogma the commands of men.' For you ignore God's commandments so that you can** [tightly] **hold on to the traditions of men."** Further he went on to say, **"Full well you set aside God's laws in order to observe your traditions. For instance, Moses gave you this law: 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'anyone who reviles their father or mother ends up in death.' But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you because I have vowed to give to God the gift I could have given to you.'**_ [Because of your greed] _you let them disregard their needy parents. In this way, you invalidate the law of God in order to protect your_ [own interests in the name of] _tradition. And that is only one example. There are many, many others."_

_**Then Jesus called the crowd to come.. "All of you listen,"** he said, **"and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat**_ [or how you eat] _ **; you are defiled by what you say and do!"** Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and we asked him what he meant by the statements he had made. **"Don't you comprehend either?"** he asked. **"Can't you see what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but passes through the stomach and intestines and the**_ [processed remnant] _passes to the sewer. It is what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him."_ [Ceremonial practices don't prevent that kind of defilement.] _And then he added, **"It is the thought [induced] life that defiles you. For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, a wicked eye**_ [pornography] _, envy, slander, pride, and unreasonableness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you."_

_Then Jesus stood up and_ [upon leaving Galilee,] _we went north to the regions of Tyre and Sidon. He tried to keep it secret that he was there [by going into a house alone, but he didn't succeed]. As usual, the news of his arrival spread fast. Right away a woman came to him whose little girl was possessed by an evil spirit. She had heard about Jesus, and now she came and fell at his feet. She begged him to release her child from the demon's control. Since she was of Greek_ [origin but was] _born in Syrian Phoenicia, and at first Jesus did not respond. We disciples urged him to send her away saying: "Send her away because she keeps crying out after us." The woman came and knelt before Jesus. "Lord help me," she pleaded. Jesus responded, **"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel first. Let the children**_ [of God] _**be satisfied. It isn't right to take food from children and throw it to dogs."** She replied, "That's true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the crumbs that fall from the little boys." He said, **"Good answer! And because you have answered so well you may go, the demon has left your daughter."**_ [We learned later] _that when the woman arrived home, her little girl was lying quietly in bed, and the demon was gone._

[Our small group] _left Tyre and went to Sidon, then back towards the Sea of Galilee. Jesus and we disciples left Galilee and went up to the villages adjacent to Caesarea Philippi. As we were walking along, he asked us, **"Who do people say I am?"** A disciple replied, "Some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say you are one of the other prophets." Then he put this question to us, **"Who do you say I am?"** I replied, "You are the messiah." But Jesus strictly warned us not to tell anyone_ [that] _about him._

_Then we came to the region of Ten Towns_ [called the Decapolis] _. There a deaf man with a speech impediment was brought to Jesus, and the people begged him to lay his hands on the man to heal him. Instead, Jesus led him to a private place and_ [we helped keep] _the crowd away. He put his fingers into the man's ears. Then, spitting onto his own fingers, he touched the man's tongue with the spittle. And looking up to heaven, he sighed deeply and commanded in Aramaic: **"Ephphatha"** , which means, "Be opened!" Instantly the man could hear normally and speak plainly! Jesus told the crowd not to tell anyone, but the more he told crowds not to, the more they spread the news, for the people were completely amazed. Again and again they said, "He does everything well. He even heals those who are deaf and mute!"_

_About this time another great crowd had gathered_ [after we had returned to Galilee] _, and the people ran out of food again. Jesus called to us disciples and told us, "I feel sorry for these people. They have been here in this desolate place for three days because of me, and they have nothing left to eat. And if I send them home without feeding them, some will faint along the road because they have come a long distance." I asked, "How are we supposed to find enough food for them here in this lonely place?" Jesus asked in return, **"How many loaves of bread do you have?"**_ [The answer came] _"Seven". So Jesus told all the people to recline on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves, thanked God for them, broke them into pieces, and gave them to his disciples, to distribute the bread pieces to the crowd. A few small fish were found; so Jesus also blessed these and told the disciples to pass them out as well. The people ate until they were satisfied, and when the scraps were picked up, there were seven large_ [provision] _baskets full! There were about four thousand in the crowd that day, and he sent them home after they had eaten._

_Immediately after this, he got into the boat with us and we crossed over to the region of Dalmanutha. When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had arrived_ [back in Galilee] _, they came to argue with him._ [Both the] _Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus' claims by asking him to show them a miraculous sign from heaven. When he heard this, he sighed deeply to his spirit and said, **"Why do you people keep demanding a miraculous sign? You know the saying, 'Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow, red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.' You are good at reading the weather signs in the sky, but you can't read the obvious signs of the times! Only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah."**_

_So he got back into the boat and left them, and we crossed to the other side of the lake. But then we realized we had forgotten to obtain bread_ [in Magdala] _, as a consequence there was only one loaf of bread in the boat._ [As we were crossing the lake,] _Jesus warned us with an order, **"Watch out, keep your eyes open. Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod."** We_ [mulled it over] _between ourselves as to what Jesus meant and decided he was saying this because we hadn't bought any bread. Jesus noted this and he said, **"Why are you concerned about having not enough food? Won't you ever perceive or comprehend? Are your hearts too impaired? You have eyes — can't you see? You have ears — can't you hear?' Don't you remember anything at all? When the five thousand were fed with five loaves of bread? How many baskets of leftovers did you pick up afterward?"** "Twelve,"_ [came the reply] _. **"And when I fed the four thousand with seven loaves, how many large baskets of leftovers did you pick up?"** "Seven,"_ [was the reply] _. **"Don't you comprehend even yet?"** he asked us._

CHAIRMAN:

At this point we have an important episode found only in John's gospel which follows the feeding of the multitudes. Benjamin would you do the honors please.

APOSTLE JOHN:

_The next morning, back across the lake, crowds began gathering on the shore, waiting to see_ [what had happened to] _Jesus. For they knew that he and his disciples had_ [gone] _over together and that the disciples had then_ [come back] _in their boat, leaving him behind. Several boats from Tiberias landed near the place where people had eaten the bread after Lord had given thanks. When the crowd saw that Jesus wasn't there, nor his disciples, they got into boats and went across to Capernaum to look for him. When they arrived_ [in Capernaum] _and found him_ [in the synagogue] _, they asked, "Teacher, how did you get here?" Jesus replied, **"The truth is, you want to be with me because I fed you, not because you saw the miraculous sign. But you shouldn't be so concerned about perishable things like food. Spend your energy seeking the eternal life that I, the Son of Man, can give you; for upon this one, God, my father, has sealed."** They replied, "What does God want us to do?" Jesus told them, **"This is what God wants you to do: Believe in whom that one has sent."** They replied, "You must show us a miraculous sign if you want us to believe in you. What will you do for us? After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! As the Scriptures say, 'Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus said, **"I assure you, Moses didn't provide them bread from the spirit realm. But my father offers you the true bread from the spirit realm. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from the spirit realm and gives life to the world."** "Sir," they said, "Give us that bread every day of our lives." Jesus replied, **"I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever be hungry again. Those who believe in me will never thirst. But as I have said, you haven't believed in me even though you have seen me**_ [do miraculous things] _. However, those my father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. For I have come down from the spirit realm to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those that one has given me, but that I should raise them to eternal life at the last day. For it is my father's will that all who see the son and believe in him should have eternal life — that I should raise them at the last day."_

Then the people began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, "I am the bread from the spirit realm." They said, "This is Jesus, the son of Joseph. We know his father and mother. How can he say, 'I came down from the spirit realm'?" But Jesus replied, **"Don't complain about what I said. People can't come to me unless my father, who sent me, draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them from the dead. As it is written in the Scriptures, 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who hears and learns from my father comes to me. I assure you, anyone who believes in me already has eternal life. Yes, I am the bread of life! Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. However, the bread from the spirit realm gives eternal life to everyone who eats it. I am the living bread that came down out of the spirit realm. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; this bread is my flesh, offered so the world may live."**

Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they asked. So Jesus said again, **"I assure you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them at the last day. My flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink. All who eat my flesh and drink my blood remain in me, and I in them. I live by the power of the living one who sent me; in the same way, those who partake of me will live because of me. I am the true bread from the spirit realm. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever and not die as your ancestors did, even though they ate the manna."** He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Upon hearing this discourse, even some of us disciples said, "This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?" Jesus knew within himself that his disciples were complaining, so he said to us, **"Does this offend you? Then what will you think if you see me, the Son of Man, return to the spirit realm again? It is the Spirit who gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But some of you don't believe me."** (For Jesus knew from the beginning who didn't believe, and he knew who would betray him.) Then he said, **"That is what I meant when I said that people can't come to me unless my father brings them to me."**

At this point many of his disciples in the crowd turned away and deserted him. Then Jesus turned to the Twelve of us and asked, **"Are you going to leave, too?"** Simon Peter replied, "Lord, to whom would we go? You alone have the words that give eternal life. We believe them, and we know you are the Holy One of God." Then Jesus said, **"I chose the twelve of you, but one is a devil."** He was speaking of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, one of the Twelve, who would betray him.

PROF. FRENKEL:

This last part of John's account where his disciples desert Jesus, underscores how difficult it is for people to comprehend the spiritual given the limitations of language that Jesus himself faced. Jesus was obviously not talking about cannibalism but what he really meant is beyond me at least. We will run into this problem again in the discussion on the covenant. Please continue with John's account Benjamin.

**APOSTLE JOHN** :

[Some time later we disciples returned to Jerusalem with] _Jesus for one of the Jewish festivals. Inside the city, near the Sheep Gate, was the pool of Bethesda (a Hebrew name), with five covered porches. Crowds of sick people — blind, lame, or paralyzed — lay on the porches. One of the men lying there had been sick for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him and knew how long he had been ill, he asked him, "Would you like to get well?" The sick man said, "I can't, sir, for I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to get there, someone else always gets in ahead of me." Jesus told him, "Stand up, pick up your cot, and walk around!" Instantly, the man was healed! He picked up the cot and began walking! But this miracle happened on the Sabbath day; so the Jewish leaders_ [who observed the well known man carrying his cot around] _objected. They said to the man who was cured, "You can't work on the Sabbath! It's illegal to carry that cot!" He replied, "The one who healed me, that one said to me, 'Pick up your cot and walk around.'" They commanded an answer, "Who is the one who said such a thing as that?" The man didn't know, for Jesus had disappeared into the crowd. But afterward_ [we] _ran across him in the Temple plaza_ [and Jesus identified himself] _. And Jesus told him, "Now you are well; don't sin_ [like you once did] _or something even worse may happen to you." Then the man went to find the Jewish leaders and told them it was Jesus who had healed him._

PROF. FRENKEL:

I just have to interrupt! Being a numbers freak I can't resist the temptation to expound [audience laughter]. I find it strange that a detail is brought out like the man being ill for thirty-eight years. It reminds me of the 153 fish caught in the net that we will hear about near the end of the symposium; and, of course, the many appearances in the Bible of the number 40. Strange number occurrences such as this, to my mind at least, are found throughout the Bible. 'Numerology', so called, has not received the attention in the New Testament as it has in the Old Testament. I wish we could give a one day symposium on Bible numerology. I think people would find it fascinating. In the case at hand I think the number 38 is a hidden representation of Jesus' age. If that is true, then the year would be about 30. This fits in well with council's time line. Well, forgive me Benjamin, please continue."

APOSTLE JOHN:

_So the Jewish leaders began harassing Jesus for breaking the Sabbath rules, but Jesus told them, "My father is always working even up to this very moment, so I am working." At that point_ [it was obvious that] _the Jewish leaders were determined all the more to kill him; because, in addition to disobeying their Sabbath rules, to their way of thinking, he had spoken of God as his father, thereby making himself a God._

_[Because of the increasing persecution, we were advised to leave Judea and return to Galilee for safety. However, the Jewish leaders made sure that Pharisee members tailed Jesus.] Jesus told them, **"I judge you leaders of the people from what I hear you say. I judge as I am told, and my judgment is absolutely righteous, because it is according to the will of the one who sent me; and not my own. Truly I assure you, the Son**_ [of Man] _can do nothing by himself. He does nothing without consulting his father. He does only what his father tells him_ [through the spirit] _. The Son_ [of Man] _does only what his father does. For my father loves his Son and tells him what to do and say, and the Son will do far greater things than healing. You will be astonished at what he does. He will even raise from the dead anyone he wants to, just as his father does. And his father will give him authority to judge all mankind;_ [leaving] _all judgment to the Son. But if you refuse to honor the Son then you are certainly not honoring my father who sent me._

_Truly I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in the one who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins; they have already passed from death into life [here on earth]. And I assure you that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and come to life. Those_ [alive] _who listen_ [will also come] _to life. The genitor has_ [the power of] _life, and he has granted his Son to have_ [that same power of] _life in himself. Don't be so surprised! Indeed,_ [a future] _time is coming when all the dead images will hear his voice; and they will come forth---those who have done good to a resurrection of eternal life, and those who have practiced bad to a cut-off._

"[According to your own law] _, if I were to testify on my own behalf, my testimony would not be valid. But someone else is also testifying about me, and I can assure you that everything he says about me is true. In fact, you have sent messengers to listen to John, and he preached the truth. But the best testimony about me is not from a man like John, though I remind you about John's testimony so you might be saved. John was_ [like a] _lamp burning brightly and it shone brilliantly for a while, and you benefited and rejoiced. But I have a greater witness than John — my teachings and my miracles. They have been assigned to me by my father, and they testify that my father has sent me. And my father has also testified about me without being seen or heard. You have the message in your hearts, but you do not listen to your heart. You search the Scriptures because you believe they give you eternal life, but the Scriptures point to me; yet you refuse to come to me so that I can give you this life._

_Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me, because I know you don't have God's love within you. For I come representing my father, and yet you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves. No wonder you can't believe, for you gladly honor each other, but you don't care about the honor that comes from God alone. Yet it is not_ [only] _I who accuse you of this, Moses accuses you! Yes, Moses, on whom you set your hopes. But if you_ [would] _believe Moses, you_ [would believe] _me because he wrote about me; and since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"_

CHAIRMAN:

We return now to Peter's account.

APOSTLE PETER:

_When we arrived at Bethsaida, some people brought a blind man to Jesus, and they begged him to touch and heal the man. Jesus took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village_ [with only us disciples following] _. Then, spitting on the man's eyes, he laid his hands on him and asked, **"Can you see anything now?"** The man looked around. "Yes," he said, "I_ [think I] _see people, but I can't see them very clearly. They look like trees walking around." Then Jesus placed his hands over the man's eyes again. And his sight was completely restored, and_ [not only that] _, he could see everything far off in a_ [special] _radiance. Jesus sent him home, saying, **"Don't go back into the village."**_

_Then Jesus began to tell us that it was necessary for The Son of Man to undergo many sufferings and be rejected by the [Jewish] leaders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, and three days later he would rise again. He talked about this very plainly_ [quite unusual]. B _ut I_ [not understanding at all] _took Jesus aside and_ [in rebuke] _told him he shouldn't say things like that. Jesus turned and looked at his other disciples and then rebuked me_ [very directly] _, **"Get beneath and behind me, Satan, because you are not thinking things of God but things of men.** Then he called the crowds to come over and_ [to] _listen with us and said: **"If any of you is willing to be my follower, let him put aside selfishness, pull up his stake [of sin which binds], and [then] let him be following me. For if you try to keep your life**_ [your soul] _for your_ [selfish] _self, you will lose it. But if you give up your_ [life] _your soul, for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it_ [and find the true life] _ **. And how do you benefit if you gain the whole world but forfeit your own soul (in the process)? Is anything worth more than your soul? [Furthermore,] whoever is ashamed of me and my message in this adulterous and sinful generation, The Son of Man, will be ashamed of them when I return in the glory of my father with the holy angels."** Jesus went on to say **, "I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not taste death before you see the Kingdom of God arrive in power!"**_

CHAIRMAN:

We will now have a twenty minute intermission. Council members will again be available to answer questions.

SATURDAY AFTERNOON SECOND SESSION

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome back everyone. Next we continue with Peter's account which includes the transfiguration miracle. Since this is plainly a supernatural event, the council doesn't have much to say about it. Of the three eyewitnesses that were there only Peter wrote about it via Mark of course. So let's continue with the Apostle Peter's account.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Six days later Jesus took_ [me] _, James, and John to the top of a mountain; no one else was there. As we watched, Jesus' appearance was transfigured, and his clothing became dazzling white, far whiter than any earthly process could ever make it. Then Elijah and Moses appeared and began talking with Jesus. "Teacher, this is wonderful!" I exclaimed. "We will make three shrines — one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." I didn't really know what to say, for I and James and John were all terribly afraid. Then a cloud came over, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." Suddenly,_ [the cloud was gone] _and as I looked around Moses and Elijah had disappeared, and_ [there was only] _Jesus. As we descended the mountainside, he told us not to tell anyone what we had seen until he, the Son of Man, had risen from the dead. So I_ [and the rest] _kept it to ourselves, but we often asked each other what he meant by "rising from the dead."_

[On the way down] _I asked him, "Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?" Jesus responded, "Elijah is indeed coming first to set everything in order. Why then is it written in the Scriptures that the Son of Man must suffer and be treated with utter contempt? But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and he was badly mistreated, just as predicted in what is written about him."_

_At the foot of the mountain we found a great crowd surrounding the other disciples, and some teachers of religious law were arguing with them. The crowd watched Jesus in awe as he came toward them, and_ _the other disciples ran to greet him. "What is all this arguing about?" he asked_ [them] _. One of the men in the crowd spoke up and said, "Teacher, I brought my son for you to heal him. He can't speak because he is possessed by an evil spirit that won't let him talk. Whenever this evil spirit seizes him, it throws him violently to the ground and makes him foam at the mouth and grind his teeth and become rigid. So I asked your disciples to cast out the evil spirit, but they couldn't do it." Jesus said to them, "You faithless people! How long must I be with you until you believe? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." So they brought the boy. But when the_ [boy] _saw Jesus, the evil spirit threw the child into a violent convulsion, and he fell to the ground, writhing and foaming at the mouth. **"How long has this been happening?"** Jesus asked the boy's father. He replied, "Since he was very small. The evil spirit often makes him fall into the fire or into water, trying to kill him. If you can do anything, have mercy on us and help us." **"What do you mean, 'If I can'?"** Jesus asked. **"All is possible to a person that trusts."** The father of the young child instantly cried out, "I trust!!, I trust!,_ [Please] _help me not to doubt!" When Jesus observed the crowd of onlookers, who had been scared away, was returning, he rebuked the evil spirit. **"Spirit causing deafness and muteness,"** he said, **"I command you to come out of this child and never enter him again!"** Then the spirit screamed and threw the boy into another violent convulsion and left him. The boy lay there motionless, and he appeared to be dead. A murmur ran through the crowd, "He's dead." But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him to his feet, and he stood up_ [by himself] _. Afterward, when Jesus was in a house with his disciples,_ [one of them] _asked him in private, "Why couldn't we cast out that evil spirit?" Jesus replied, **"That was of the kind which can be cast out only by prayer."**_

Leaving that region, we traveled through Galilee. Jesus tried to avoid all publicity in order to spend more time with us and teach us. He said to us, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead." I didn't understand what he was saying, but I was afraid to ask him what he meant.

On our arrival back in Capernaum, the tax collectors for the Temple tax came to me and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the Temple tax?" "Of course he does," I replied. Then I went into the house to talk to Jesus about it. But before I had a chance to speak, Jesus asked me, **"What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the foreigners they have conquered?"** "They tax the foreigners," I replied. **"Well, then,"** Jesus said, **"the citizens are free! However, we don't want to offend them, so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a coin. Take the coin and pay the tax for both of us."**

_About that time we disciples_ [got into an argument about which one of us] _was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus_ [knew of our argument and] _called a small child over to him and put the child among us. Then he said, **"I assure you, unless you repent and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me".**_

_Then I came to him and asked, "Lord, how often should I forgive_ [a] _brother who sins against me; seven times?"_ _"No!"_ _Jesus replied,_ _"seventy times seven! If a brother_ [another believer] _sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens_ [and understands his error], _you have won that brother back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If that person still refuses to listen_ [and maintains his righteous position], _take your case to the congregation. If the congregation decides you are right, but the other person won't accept it,_ [no longer treat] _that person as a_ [brother]. _Truly I tell you this: whoever you_ [accept into fellowship] here on earth will be accepted in heaven; and whoever you [disassociate with] _on earth will be_ [disassociated] _in heaven_. [But you must still forgive them in your heart.]" _Then Jesus told us this parable:_

[The way forgiveness is in] _the Spirit Realm can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. He couldn't pay, so the king ordered that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt. But the man fell down before the king and begged him, 'Oh, sir, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.' Then the king was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt. But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment. His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. 'Be patient and I will pay it,' he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn't wait. He had the man arrested and jailed until the debt could be paid in full. When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him what had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, 'You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn't you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?' Then the angry king sent the man to prison until he had paid every penny. "_ [In like manner] _that's what my heavenly father will do to each one of you if you refuse to forgive your brothers_ [and sisters] _in your heart."_

_After we arrived at Capernaum, Jesus_ [had us come into his house so that] _he_ [could] _ask us, **"What were you discussing on the**_ [way here] _ **?"** But_ [no one] _answered because we had been arguing about which of us was the greatest. He sat down and_ [had] _the twelve of us_ [come] _over_ [next] _to him. Then he said, **"Anyone who wants to be the first, he will be last of all and be the servant of everyone else." Then he had a little boy**_ [who had come into the house with him] _stand in our midst. Taking the child in his arms, he said to us, "Anyone who receives me as this little boy does, on the basis of my name alone, receives me, and anyone who receives me receives the one having sent me forth."_

John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw a man using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn't one of our group." But Jesus said. **"Don't stop him!" "No one who performs a powerful work in my name will quickly be able to speak badly of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us. If anyone gives you even a cup of water to drink, in my name, because you belong to the Messiah, I assure you, that person will not lose his reward."**

_Then Jesus looked down at the little boy in his lap and said, **"But if anyone causes one of these little ones, who trusts in me, to lose faith, it would be**_ [fitting] _for that person to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to come into life maimed than to go with two hands into a dump like Gehenna where the fires are never extinguished. If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better to come into life lame than be thrown with two feet into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It is better to enter the Spirit Realm half blind than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna, 'where_ [never ending] _maggots feast on them and the fire is never extinguished.' For everyone will be salted_ [and burnished] _with fire. Salting is better; but if it loses its effectiveness, how do you make it salty again? You must have the qualities of salt among yourselves and live in peace with each other."_

PROF. FRENKEL:

I want to interrupt at this point to emphasize a reading we are about to hear. It is on a topic that Jesus himself must have emphasized because it appears in all four gospels. This harmonization or coordination of all four happens quite infrequently....it was encountered last as you recall in the feeding of the five thousand. Most occur in the Passion Week accounts. Here the emphasis is on divorce and the philosophy Jesus expresses is the same encountered in the Sermon on the Mount. Please continue Jonathan.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Then Jesus left Capernaum and went southward_ [with us] _to the region of Judea and into the area east of the Jordan River. As always there were the crowds, and as usual he taught them_ [with parables] _. Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?" **"What to you did Moses command?"** Jesus asked them. "Well, he wrote a brief permitting a man to dismiss his wife and thereby divorce her," they responded. But Jesus said to them, **"He wrote that commandment as a concession to your hard-heartedness. However, from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female**_ [as one] _ **. In this concept, a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife; the two become one flesh. They are no longer two but are one flesh! God has joined them together, therefore the man is not to separate them."** Later, when he was alone with his us in a house, we brought up the subject again. Jesus told us, **"Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she commits adultery."**_

_One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could touch them; but the disciples reprimanded them_ [for attempting] _to bother him. But when Jesus saw what was happening, he became indignant. He said to us, **"Let the children come to me. Don't stop them for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, anyone who doesn't have their kind of trust will never get into the Kingdom of God."** Then he took the children into his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them._

As he left the house and was going on his way, a man came running up to Jesus, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what should I do to get eternal life?" **"Why do you call me good?"** Jesus asked. **"No one is good except one, God. But as for your question, you know the commandments: 'Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not testify falsely. Do not cheat. Honor your father and mother....'"** "Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was a child." Jesus felt love for this man as he looked at him. **"You lack only one thing,"** he told him. **"Go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."** At this, the man's face fell, and he went sadly away because he had many possessions. Jesus looked around and said to us, **"How hard it is for rich people to get into the spirit realm!"** What he said astonished us. Jesus said further, **"Unless you are like children, it is very hard to get into the spirit realm. It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich person to enter the spirit realm!"** We were even more astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" I asked. Jesus looked at us intently and said, **"Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not so with God. Everything is possible with God."**

_Then I,_ [still not understanding,] _said to him, "Look, we've given up everything to follow you.... Jesus interrupted, **"I assure you that everyone who has given up brothers or sisters or mother or father or wife or children or property or house, for my sake and for the good news, will receive now, in this period of time, in return, a hundred times over, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and property — but with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who seem to be important now will be the least important then, and those who are considered least here will be the greatest then."**_

_Then the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus with her sons_ [beside her] _. She knelt respectfully to ask a favor. **"What is your request?"** he asked. She said, "When you come into your Kingdom, will you let my sons sit in places of honor next to you, one at your right and the other at your left?" But Jesus told them, **"You don't know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of sorrow I am about to drink?"** "Oh yes," they replied, "we are able!" He told them, **"You will indeed drink from it; but I have no right to say who will sit on the thrones next to mine. My father has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen."** When the ten other disciples heard what James and John had asked, they were indignant. But Jesus called them together and said, **"You know that in this world kings are tyrants, and officials lord it over the people beneath them. But among you it should be quite different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must become your slave. For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many."**_

PROF. FRENKEL:

Our chronology continues with the Apostle John's account of the final trip from Galilee to Jerusalem. An important aspect of John's account is he gives three time markers. The reading will be interrupted to point these out. The first is that he is going to the festival of shelters (or booths); also called festival of tabernacles. This week long festival occurred after the harvest in the month of Tishri which roughly corresponds to the end of September and the beginning of October. Benjamin will give the reading.

APOSTLE JOHN:

_After this, Jesus stayed in Galilee, going from village to village. He wanted to stay out of Judea where the Jewish leaders were plotting his death. As it was time for the Festival of Shelters, Jesus' brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. "Go where your followers can see your miracles!" they scoffed. "You can't become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world!" For even his brothers didn't believe in him. Jesus replied, **"Now is not the right time for me to go. But you can go anytime, and it will make no difference. The world can't hate you, but it does hate me because I accuse it of sin and evil. You go on. I am not yet ready to go to this festival, because my time has not yet come."** So Jesus remained in Galilee_ [with us] _._

_But after his brothers had left for the festival, Jesus also went, though secretly, staying out of public view._ [And so we also] _were on the way to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of us. We_ [apostles] _were astonished_ [because we were knowingly heading for disaster by doing this] _and those disciples following behind were overwhelmed with fear._ [As we approached Jerusalem,] _taking the twelve of us aside, Jesus once more began to describe everything that was about to happen to him in Jerusalem. **"In Jerusalem,"** he told us, **"the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again."**_

_The Jewish leaders tried to find Jesus at the festival and kept asking if anyone had seen him. There was a lot of discussion about him among the crowds. Some said, "He's a wonderful man," while others said, "He's nothing but a fraud, deceiving the people." But no one had the courage to speak favorably about him in public, for they were afraid of getting in trouble with the Jewish leaders. Then, midway through the festival, Jesus went up to the Temple and began to teach. The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. "How does he know so much of what has been written when he hasn't studied ?" they asked. So Jesus told them, **"I'm not teaching my own ideas, but they are those of the one that sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. Those who present their own ideas are looking for praise for themselves, but those who seek to honor the one who sent**_ [me] _are good and genuine. None of you obeys the law of Moses! Why_ [then] _are you trying to kill me?"_ [Several in] _the crowd_ [called out] _, "You're demon possessed! Who's trying to kill you?" Jesus replied, **"I worked on the Sabbath by healing a man, and you were offended. But you work on the Sabbath, too, when you obey Moses' law of circumcision.** (Actually, this tradition of circumcision is older than the law of Moses; it goes back to Abraham.) **If the correct time for circumcising your son falls on the Sabbath, you go ahead and do it, so as not to break the law of Moses. So why should I be condemned for making a man completely well on the Sabbath? Stop judging from outward appearances, but instead judge righteously."**_

_Some of the people who lived there in Jerusalem said among themselves, "Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? But here he is, speaking in public, and they say nothing to him. Can it be that our leaders know that he really is the Messiah? But how could he be? For we know where this man comes from. When the Messiah comes, he will simply appear; no one will know where he comes from."_ [Jesus knew their thinking and] _while teaching in the Temple, he called out, **"Yes, you know me, and you know where I come from. I have not come from myself, but**_ [it] _**is true the one having sent me is the one you have not known. I know that one because I am beside the one that sent me to you."** Then the leaders tried to arrest him; but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. Many among the crowds at the Temple believed in him. "After all," they said, "would you expect the Messiah to do more miraculous signs than this man has done?" When the Pharisees heard that the crowds were murmuring such things,_ [this time] _they and the leading priests sent Temple guards to arrest Jesus. But_ [before they could,] _Jesus_ [shouted] _out to them, **"I will be here**_ [only] _**a little longer. Then I will return to the one who sent me. You will search for me but not find me. And you won't be able to come where I am."** The Jewish leaders were puzzled by this. "Where is he planning to go?" they asked. "Maybe he is thinking of leaving the country and going to the Jews in other lands, or maybe even to the Gentiles! What does he mean when he says, 'You will search for me but not find me,' and 'You won't be able to come where I am'?"_ [Again he was not arrested.]

On the last day, the climax of the festival, Jesus stood and shouted to the crowds, **"If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink! For the Scriptures declare that rivers of living water will flow out from within."** When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, "This man surely is the Prophet." Others said, "He is the Messiah." Still others said, "But he can't be! Will the Messiah come from Galilee? For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David, in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born." So the crowd was divided in their opinion about him. Some wanted him arrested, but no one touched him.

_The Temple guards who had been sent to arrest Jesus returned to the leading priests and Pharisees_ [where they were holding a meeting] _. "Why didn't you bring him in?" they demanded. "We have never heard anyone talk like this!" the guards responded. "Have you been led astray too?" the Pharisees mocked. "Is there a single one of us rulers or Pharisees who believes in him? These ignorant crowds do, but what do they know about it? A curse on them anyway!" Nicodemus, the leader who had met with Jesus earlier, then spoke up. "Is it legal to convict a man before he is given a hearing?" he asked. They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Search the Scriptures and see for yourself — no prophet ever comes from Galilee!" Then the meeting broke up and everybody went home._

_Jesus said to the people, **"I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life."** The Pharisees responded, "You are making false claims about yourself!" Jesus told them, **"These claims are valid even though I make them about myself; for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you don't know this about me. You judge me with all your human limitations, but I am not judging anyone. And**_ [even] _if I did, my judgment would be correct in every respect because I am not alone — I have with me_ [my] _**father who sent me. Your own law says that if two people agree about something, their witness is accepted as fact. I am one witness, and my father who sent me is the other."** Where is your father?" they asked. Jesus answered, **"Since you don't know who I am, you don't know who my father is. If you knew me, then you would know my father too."** Jesus made these statements while he was teaching in the section of the Temple known as the Treasury. But he was not arrested, because his time had not yet come._

_Later Jesus said to them again, **"I am going away. You will search for me and die in your sin. You cannot come where I am going."** The Jewish leaders asked, "Is he planning to commit suicide? What does he mean, 'You cannot come where I am going'?" Then he said to them, **"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not. That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in your sins."** "Tell us who you are," they demanded. Jesus replied, **"I am the one I have always claimed to be. I have much to say about you and much to condemn, but I won't. For I say only what I have heard from the one who sent me, and**_ [that one] _**is true."** But they still didn't understand that he was talking to them about his father_ [in the spirit realm] _. So Jesus said, **"When you have lifted up the Son of Man on the cross, then you will realize that I am he and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak what my father tells me. And the one who sent me is with me — has not deserted me; for I always do those things that are pleasing to**_ [that one] _ **."** Then many who heard him say these things believed in him._

_Jesus said to the people_ [in the crowd] _who believed in him, **"You are truly my disciples if you keep on obeying my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."**_ [The Pharisees in the crowd shouted,] _"We are descendants of Abraham; we have never been slaves to anyone on earth. What do you mean, 'set free'?" Jesus replied, **"Truly, I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free. Yes, I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a place in your hearts. What I am instructed by my father I am telling you; but you are following the advice of your fathers."** In answer to Jesus they declared, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus replied, **"No, if you were children of Abraham, you would follow his good example. I told you the truth I heard from God, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham wouldn't do a thing like that. No, you are obeying your real father when you act that way."** They replied, "We were not born out of wedlock! Our true Father is God himself." Jesus told them, **"If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but**_ [God] _**sent me. Why can't you understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to do so! For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don't believe me! Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin? And since I am telling you the truth, why don't you believe me? Anyone whose Father is God listens gladly to the words of God. Since you don't, it proves you aren't God's children."** The_ [Pharisees] _retorted, "You Samaritan devil! Didn't we say all along that you were possessed by a demon?" **"No,"** Jesus said, **"I have no demon in me. I honor my father — and you dishonor me. And though I have no wish to glorify myself, God wants to glorify me. Let God be the judge. I assure you, anyone who obeys my teaching will never die!"** The_ [Pharisees] _said, "Now we know you are possessed by a demon. Even Abraham and the prophets died, but you say that those who obey your teaching will never die! Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Are you greater than the prophets, who died? Who do you think you are?" Jesus answered, **"If I am merely boasting about myself, it doesn't count. But it is my father who says glorious things about me. You say, 'He is our God,' but you do not even know God.**_ [But] _**I know God. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But it is true — I know and obey God. Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad."** One of the Jewish leaders said to him, "You aren't even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, **"The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"** At that point they picked up stones to kill him; but Jesus hid himself from them and left the Temple._

PROF. FRENKEL:

Here we have the second time marker. We on the council believe that the leaders of the Jews had located the temple records going back to Jesus being presented to the Temple as a baby. From these records they had accurately determined the date of his birth and knew that his fortieth birthday had recently occurred. They therefore could not say you aren't even forty years old but instead said 'fifty years'. Using this as a basis, our chronology then puts this scenario late in the year 32AD. Need I point out the dramatic statement Jesus makes about his pre-existence? O.K. Benjamin, please continue."

APOSTLE JOHN:

_As Jesus was walking_ [away from the Temple] _, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. "Teacher," we asked him, "why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?" **"It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins,"** Jesus answered. **"He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him. All of us must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one who sent me, because there is little time left before the night falls and all work comes to an end. But while I am still here in the world, I am the light of the world."** Then he spit on the ground, made mud with the saliva, and smoothed the mud over the blind man's eyes. He told him, **"Go and wash in the pool of Siloam"** (Siloam means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came back seeing! His neighbors and others who knew him as a blind beggar asked each other, "Is this the same man — that beggar?" Some said he was, and others said, "No, but he surely looks like him!" And the beggar kept saying, "I am the same man!" They asked, "Who healed you? What happened?" He told them, "The man they call Jesus made mud and smoothed it over my eyes and told me, 'Go to the pool of Siloam and wash off the mud.' I went and washed, and now I can see!" "Where is he now?" they asked. "I don't know," he replied. Then they took the man to the Pharisees. Now as it happened, Jesus had healed the man on a Sabbath. The Pharisees asked the man all about it. So he told them, "He smoothed the mud over my eyes, and when it was washed away, I could see!" Some of the Pharisees said, "This man Jesus is not from God, for he is working on the Sabbath." Others said, "But how could an ordinary sinner do such miraculous signs?" So there was a deep division of opinion among them. Then the Pharisees once again questioned the man who had been blind and demanded, "This man who opened your eyes — who do you say he is?" The man replied, "I think he must be a prophet." The Jewish leaders wouldn't believe he had been blind, so they called in his parents. They asked them, "Is this your son? Was he born blind? If so, how can he see?" His parents replied, "We know this is our son and that he was born blind, but we don't know how he can see or who healed him. He is old enough to speak for himself. Ask him." They responded in this way because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who had announced that anyone saying Jesus was the Messiah would be expelled from the synagogue. That's why they said, "He is old enough to speak for himself. Ask him." So for the second time they called in the man who had been blind and told him, "Give glory to God by telling the truth, because we know Jesus is a sinner." "I don't know whether_ [or not] _he is a sinner," the man replied. "But I know this: I was blind, and now I can see!" "But what did he do?" they asked. "How did he heal you?" "Look!" the man exclaimed. "I told you once. Didn't you listen? Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?" Then they cursed him and said, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know God spoke to Moses, but as for this man,_ [Jesus,] _we don't know anything about him." "Why, that's very strange!" the man replied. "He healed my eyes, and yet you don't know anything about him! Well, God doesn't listen to sinners, but he is ready to hear those who worship him and do his will. Never since the world began has anyone been able to open the eyes of someone born blind. If this man were not from God, he couldn't do it." "You were born in sin!" they answered. "Are you trying to teach us?" And they expelled him_ [from his synagogue] _._

_When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and said, **"Do you believe in the Son of Man?"** The man answered, "Who is he, sir, because I would like to." **"You have seen him,"** Jesus said, **"and he is speaking to you!"** "Yes, Lord," the man said, "I believe!" And he worshiped Jesus. Then Jesus told him, **"I have**_ [not] _**come to judge the world. I have come to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind."** The Pharisees who were standing there heard him and asked, "Are you saying we are blind?" **"If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty,"** Jesus replied. **"But you remain guilty because you claim you can see."**_

_**"Truly, truly, I assure you, anyone who sneaks over the wall of a sheepfold, rather than going through the gate, must surely be a thief and a robber! For a shepherd enters through the gate. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock, he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they recognize his voice. They won't follow a stranger; they will run from him because they don't recognize his voice."** Those who heard Jesus use this comparison didn't understand what he meant, so he repeated it to them. **"Truly, truly, I assure you, I am the gate for the sheep," he said. "All the others who came before me [claiming to be the messiah] were thieves and plunderers but the sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. Wherever they go, they will find green pastures. The thief's purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give life in all its fullness. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will leave the sheep because they aren't his and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he is merely hired and has no real concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my father knows me and I know [my] Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and there will be one flock with one shepherd. My father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again. No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my father has given me this**_ [power] _ **"**. When he said these things, the people were again divided in their opinions about him. Some of them said, "He has a demon, or he's crazy. Why listen to a man like that?" Others said, "This doesn't sound like a man possessed by a demon! Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"_

CHAIRMAN:

Anton you wish to comment?

PROF. FRENKEL:

Yes I must interrupt because we now come to the third and last time marker in this portion of John's gospel and I wish to give further explanation. I won't be long and Benjamin will be able to continue in a bit. The very first sentence he will read says it is winter and the time for Hanukkah. Now Hanukkah is a celebration of the rededication of the second temple...we won't go into all of that. It is most commonly known now as the feast of dedication. It starts on the 25th of the month Chislev and ends eight days later. On our calendars this corresponds to early December. We presume Jesus did not leave the Jerusalem area in the November-December period; probably staying instead with his friends in Bethany.

_It was now winter, and Jesus was_ [still] _in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." Jesus replied, **"I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my father. But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. My father and I are one."** Once again the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him._ [Before anyone could throw,] _Jesus said, **"At my Father's direction I have done many things to help the people. For which one of these good deeds are you**_ [going to] _**kill me?"** They replied, "Not for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, have made yourself God." Jesus replied, **"It is written in your own law that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!' And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people, who received God's message, were called 'gods', why do you call it blasphemy when the holy one who was sent into the world by my father says, 'I am the Son of God'? Don't believe me unless I carry out my father's work. But if I do that work, believe in what I have done, even if you don't believe me. Then you will realize that**_ [my] _**father is in me, and I am in my father."** Once again they tried to arrest him, but he got away and left them._

CHAIRMAN:

We will stop Benjamin's reading to let you here in the auditorium have a quick break. We will resume in ten minutes with a continuation of John's gospel by Benjamin.

SATURDAY AFTERNOON SECOND INTERMISSION

SATURDAY AFTERNOON FINAL SESSION

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome back everyone. Before Benjamin continues with John's gospel account Dr. Anton wishes to comment on what appears to be a confused scenario in the New Testament accounts as they stand.

PROF. FRENKEL:

At the end of the account by Benjamin Jesus is said to leave Jerusalem and head to an area we presume to be Jericho or nearby it. All the gospel accounts seem to be very confusing at this point. But one of my colleagues on the council claims to have straightened this out through the research he has done. He says, and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt him, that Jesus left the Jericho area and went to Hebron to consult astronomers there. Again I won't go into the details of his theory (he says he is writing a book on it). Anyway, he says the apostles got into another tiff while in Hebron and only some followed Jesus back to the Jericho area. As a consequence, he says, Jesus would have come and gone several times through Jericho. There are several healings of the blind and we will consider the three healings separately. And also that is why, according to his theory, only some apostles were with Jesus at the raising of Lazarus. Also note that at the beginning of the Lazarus story Jesus says let us go back to Judea and this could imply leaving Jericho in Judea and going to Hebron and then going back to Jericho. One thing is certain from John's account...Jesus got word of Lazarus' sickness while outside of Judea. Although Hebron was in Judea when David was king, by the time of Herod the Southern boundary of Judea with Idumea was uncertain. While Herod was half Idumean, he apparently was not welcome there. His furthermost fortresses in the South were at Masada in the Dead Sea region and at Herodium both well north of Hebron. Further, the raising of Lazarus story appears only in the gospel of John which leads us to believe Matthew and Peter were not there. The blind healings stories in Mark, Matthew, and Luke are brief so we will let Benjamin read these accounts as well to avoid confusion. The blind healings are almost identical in places and it is easy to see why they can be conflated and perhaps they should be...we have chosen to present them as separate incidents and let you decide. Alright Benjamin, please continue."

APOSTLE JOHN:

[Jesus not only left the Temple, he left Jerusalem] _and went beyond the Jordan River to stay near the place where John was first baptizing. And many followed him. "John didn't do miracles," they remarked to one another, "but all his predictions about this man have come true." And many believed in him there._

As we approached Jericho with Jesus, a blind beggar was sitting beside the road. When he heard the noise of a crowd going past, he asked what was happening. They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was going by. So he began shouting, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" The crowds ahead of Jesus tried to hush the man, but he only shouted louder, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" When Jesus heard him, he stopped and ordered that the man be brought to him. Then Jesus asked the man, **"What do you want me to do for you?"** "Lord," he pleaded, "I want to see!" And Jesus said, **"All right, you can see! Your faith has healed you."** Instantly the man could see, and he followed Jesus, praising God. And all who saw it praised God, too.

[Later,] _as we left town, a great crowd was following. A blind beggar named Bartimaeus (son of Timaeus) was sitting beside the road as Jesus was going by. When Bartimaeus heard that Jesus from Nazareth was nearby, he began to shout out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" Many in the crowd rebuked him and told him to be quiet; but he only shouted louder, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" When Jesus heard him, he stopped and said, **"Tell him to come here."** So they called the blind man. "Take courage," they said. "Come on get up, he's calling you." Bartimaeus threw aside his coat, jumped up, and came to Jesus. **"What do you want me to do for you?"** Jesus asked. "Teacher," the blind man said, "I want to see!" And Jesus said to him, **"Go your way. Your faith has healed you."** And instantly the blind man could see! Then he followed Jesus down the road._

_A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in Bethany with his sisters, Mary and Martha. This is the Mary who poured the expensive perfume on the Lord's feet and wiped them with her hair. Her brother, Lazarus, was sick. So the two sisters sent a message to Jesus telling him, "Lord, the one you love is very sick." But when Jesus heard about it he said, "Lazarus's sickness will not end in death. No, it is for the glory of God. I, the Son of God, will receive glory from this." Although Jesus loved Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, he stayed where he was for the next two days and did not go to them. Finally after_ [the] _two days_ [were over] _, he said to his disciples, **"Let's go to Judea again."**_ [But the disciples who were with him] _objected. "Teacher," they said, "only a few days ago the Jewish leaders in Judea were trying to kill you. Are you going there again?" Jesus replied, **"There are twelve hours of daylight every day. As long as it is light, people can walk safely. They can see because they have the light of this world. Only at night is there danger of stumbling because there is no light."** Then he said, **"Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but now I will go and wake him up."**_ [One of the] _disciples said, "Lord, if he is sleeping, that means he is getting better!" We thought Jesus meant Lazarus was having a good night's rest, but Jesus meant Lazarus had died. Then he told us plainly, **"Lazarus is dead. And for your sake, I am glad I wasn't there, because this will give you another opportunity to believe in me. Come, let's go see him."** Thomas, nicknamed the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let's go, too — and die with Jesus."_

As Jesus and the disciples left the city of Jericho, a huge crowd followed behind. Two blind men were sitting beside the road. When they heard that Jesus was coming that way, they began shouting, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" The crowd told them to be quiet, but they only shouted louder, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" Jesus stopped in the road and called, **"What do you want me to do for you?"** "Lord," they said, "we want to see!" Jesus felt sorry for them and touched their eyes. Instantly they could see! Then they followed him.

When Jesus arrived at Bethany, he was told that Lazarus had already been in his grave for four days. Bethany was only a few miles down the road from Jerusalem, and many people had come to pay their respects and console Martha and Mary on their loss. When Martha got word that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask." Jesus told her, **"Your brother will rise again."** "Yes," Martha said, "when everyone else rises, on resurrection day." Jesus told her, **"I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. They are given eternal life for believing in me and will never perish. Do you believe this, Martha?"** "Yes, Lord," she told him. "I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God." Then she left him and returned to Mary. She called Mary aside from the mourners and told her, "The Teacher is here and wants to see you." So Mary immediately went to him. Now Jesus had stayed outside the village, at the place where Martha met him. When the people who were at the house trying to console Mary saw her leave so hastily, they assumed she was going to Lazarus's grave to weep. So they followed her there. When Mary arrived and saw Jesus, she fell down at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping and saw the other people wailing with her, he was deeply moved in Spirit and troubled. **"Where have you put him?"** he asked. They told him, "Lord, come and see." Then Jesus wept. The people who were standing nearby said, "See how much he loved him." But some said, "This man healed a blind man. Why couldn't he keep Lazarus from dying?"

And again Jesus was deeply troubled. Then they came to the grave. It was a cave with a stone rolled across its entrance. **"Roll the stone aside,"** Jesus told them. But Martha, the dead man's sister, said, "Lord, by now the smell will be terrible because he has been dead for four days." Jesus responded, **"Didn't I tell you that you will see God's glory if you believe?"** So they rolled the stone aside. Then Jesus looked up to heaven and said, **"My Father, thank you for hearing me. You always hear me, but I said it out loud for the sake of all these people standing here, so they will believe you sent me."** Then Jesus shouted, **"Lazarus, come out!"** And Lazarus came out, bound in grave clothes, his face wrapped in a head cloth. Jesus told them, **"Unwrap him and let him go!"**

Many of the people who were with Mary believed in Jesus when they saw this happen. But some went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the leading priests and Pharisees called the high council together to discuss the situation. "What are we going to do?" they asked each other. "This man certainly performs many miraculous signs. If we leave him alone, the whole nation will follow him, and then the Roman army will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation." And one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said: "How can you be so stupid? Why should the whole nation be destroyed? Let this one man die for the people." This prophecy that Jesus should die for the 'people' came from Caiaphas in his position as high priest. He didn't think of it himself; he was inspired to say it. It was a prediction that Jesus' death would be not for Israel only, but for the gathering together of all the children of God around the world. So from that time on the Jewish leaders began to plot Jesus' death. As a result, Jesus stopped his public ministry among the people and left Jerusalem. He went to a place near the wilderness, to the village of Ephraim, and stayed there with his disciples.

_It was now almost time for the celebration of Passover, and many people from the country arrived in Jerusalem several days early so they could go through the cleansing ceremony before the Passover began. They wanted to see Jesus, and as they talked in the Temple, they asked each other, "What do you think? Will he come for the Passover?" Meanwhile, the leading priests and Pharisees had publicly announced that anyone seeing Jesus must report_ [to the authorities] _immediately so they could arrest him._

_Six days before the Passover ceremonies began, Jesus arrived_ [back] _in Bethany, the home of Lazarus — the man he had raised from the dead. When all the people heard of Jesus' arrival, they flocked to see him and also to see Lazarus, the man Jesus had raised from the dead. Then the leading priests decided to kill Lazarus, too, for it was because of him that many of the people had deserted them and believed in Jesus._

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Benjamin. We come next to the triumphant entry. But we now switch to Matthew's account which is more descriptive and follows with more text than John's. We will pick up with John later. Dr Frenkel you wish to comment?

PROF. FRENKEL:

Yes, once again we have a time marker and it requires clarification. Benjamin just read that Jesus returned to Bethany six days before the Passover. The Passover festival commenced on the 14th day of Nissan; which is the first month in the Jewish lunar based calendar. Some analysts speculate that Jesus actually arranged the timing of his crucifixion so that he would die at the height of the solar eclipse recorded in the gospel accounts; we agree with that speculation. This would occur at a new moon not in the middle of the month of Nissan. Without stealing too much thunder from my colleagues proposed book, let me just say that the two dates are at odds. It is possible to explain this away by noting that the Jewish authorities had to establish the approximate date for the Passover, the most important festival, several months in advance so that Jews in the Diaspora could depart in time. Reportedly they could be off in their prediction and at least once being off a whole month. The authorities seem to have sacrificed calendar accuracy to get full attendance at the temple, a money making affair. I wish to reiterate once again, this symposium is concentrating on the teaching ministry of Jesus and not on historical details of his life so our comments cannot be in depth. As Robin mentioned, the next event is the triumphant entry reported in all four gospels. So Michael, if you would continue please.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

[Some days later Jesus and we disciples left Bethany and headed north until] _we came to the town of Bethphage on the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of us on ahead. **"Go into the village over there,"** he said, **"and you will see a donkey tied there, with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them here. If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will immediately send them."**_ [Later it was pointed out to me that] _this fulfilled the prophecy, 'Tell the people of Israel, 'Look, your King is coming to you. He is humble, riding on a donkey — even on a donkey's colt.' The two disciples did as Jesus said. They brought the animals to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it._

_Some of the crowd_ [that gathered around us] _spread their coats on the road ahead of Jesus, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. He was in the center of the procession, and the crowds all around him were shouting, "Praise God for the Son of David! Bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Praise God in highest heaven!" The entire city of Jerusalem was stirred as he entered. "Who is this?" they asked. And the crowds replied, "It's Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."_

Those in the crowd who had seen Jesus call Lazarus back to life were telling others all about it. That was the main reason so many went out to meet him — because they had heard about this mighty miracle. Then the Pharisees said to each other, "We've lost. Look, the whole world has gone after him!"

Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out the merchants and their customers. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the stalls of those selling doves. He said, **"The Scriptures declare, 'My Temple will be called a place of prayer,' but you have turned it into a den of thieves!"** The blind and the lame came to him, and he healed them there in the Temple. The leading priests and the teachers of religious law saw these wonderful miracles and heard even the little children in the Temple shouting, "Praise God for the Son of David." But they were indignant and asked Jesus, "Do you hear what these children are saying?" **"Yes,"** Jesus replied. **"Haven't you ever read the Scriptures? For they say, 'You have taught children and infants to give you praise.'"** Then he returned to Bethany, where he stayed overnight.

In the morning, as Jesus was returning to Jerusalem, he was hungry, and he noticed a fig tree beside the road. He went over to see if there were any figs on it, but there were only leaves. Then he said to it, **"May you never bear fruit again!"** And immediately the fig tree withered up. The disciples were amazed when they saw this and one of us asked, **"How did the fig tree wither so quickly?"** Then Jesus told us, **"I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, 'May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."**

_Jesus returned to the Temple and began teaching, the leading priests and other leaders came up to him. They demanded_ [to know] _, "By whose authority did you drive out the merchants from the Temple? Who gave you such authority?" **"I'll tell you who gave me the authority to do these things if you answer one question,"** Jesus replied. **"Did John's baptism come from heaven or was it merely human?"**_ [We watched them as] _they talked it over among themselves. "If we say it was from heaven, he will ask why we didn't believe him. But if we say it was merely human, we'll be mobbed, because the people think he was a prophet." So they finally replied, "We don't know." And Jesus responded, **"Then I won't answer your question either.**_

**"But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' The son answered, 'No, I won't go,' but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, 'You go,' and he said, 'Yes, sir, I will.' But he didn't go. Which of the two was obeying his father?"** They replied, "The first, of course." Then Jesus explained his meaning: **"I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the spirit realm before you do. For John the Baptist came and showed you the way to life, and you didn't believe him, while tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even when you saw this happening, you refused to turn from your sins and believe him.**

**Now listen to this parable: A certain landowner planted a vineyard, built a wall around it, dug a pit for pressing out the grape juice, and built a lookout tower. Then he leased the vineyard to tenant farmers and moved to another country. At the time of the grape harvest he sent his servants to collect his share of the crop. But the farmers grabbed his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. So the landowner sent a larger group of his servants to collect for him, but the results were the same. Finally, the owner sent his son, thinking, 'Surely they will respect my son.' But when the farmers saw his son coming, they said to one another, 'Here comes the heir to this estate. Come on, let's kill him and get the estate for ourselves!' So they grabbed him, took him out of the vineyard, and murdered him."** Then Jesus asked them, **"When the owner of the vineyard returns, what do you think he will do to those farmers?" The religious leaders replied, "He will put the wicked men to a horrible death and lease the vineyard to others who will give him his share of the crop after each harvest."**

Then Jesus asked them, **"Didn't you ever read this in the Scriptures? 'The stone rejected by the builders has now become the cornerstone. This is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous to see.' What I mean is that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will produce the proper fruit. Anyone who stumbles over that stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."**

When the leading priests and Pharisees heard Jesus, they realized he was pointing at them — that they were the farmers in his story. They wanted to arrest him, but they were afraid to try because the crowds considered Jesus to be a prophet.

Jesus told another parable to illustrate the spirit realm. He said, **"The spirit realm can be illustrated by the story of a king who prepared a great wedding feast for his son. Many guests were invited, and when the banquet was ready, he sent his servants to notify everyone that it was time to come. But they all refused! So he sent other servants to tell them, 'The feast has been prepared, and choice meats have been cooked. Everything is ready. Hurry!' But the guests he had invited ignored them and went about their business, one to his farm, another to his store. Others seized his messengers and treated them shamefully, even killing some of them. Then the king became furious. He sent out his army to destroy the murderers and burn their city. And he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, and the guests I invited aren't worthy of the honor. Now go out to the street corners and invite everyone you see.' So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn't wearing the proper clothes for a wedding. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?' And the man had no reply. Then the king said to his aides, 'Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."**

Then the Pharisees met together to think of a way to trap Jesus into saying something for which they could accuse him. They decided to send some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to ask him this question: "Teacher, we know how honest you are. You teach about the way of God regardless of the consequences. You are impartial and don't play favorites. Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?" But Jesus knew their evil motives. **"You hypocrites!"** he said. **"Whom are you trying to fool with your trick questions? Here, show me the Roman coin used for the tax."** They handed him the coin. He asked, **"Whose picture and title are stamped on it?"** "Caesar's," they replied. **Well, then,"** he said, **"give to Caesar what belongs to him. But everything that belongs to God must be given to God."** His reply amazed them, and they went away.

That same day some Sadducees stepped forward — a group of Jews who say there is no resurrection after death. They posed this question: "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies without children, his brother should marry the widow and have a child who will be the brother's heir.' Well, there were seven brothers. The oldest married and then died without children, so the second brother married the widow. This brother also died without children, and the wife was married to the next brother, and so on until she had been the wife of each of them. And then she also died. So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection [since] she was the wife of all seven of them?" Jesus replied, **"Your problem is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they won't be married. They will be like the angels in heaven. But now, as to whether there will be a resurrection of the dead — haven't you ever read about this in the Scriptures? Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead."** And the crowds heard him, and they were impressed with his teaching.

[ Michael stops his reading in accordance with the script and returns to his dais.]

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Michael. We are not through with you nor are we finished with Matthew's gospel...just the opposite. We are now going to be blessed with some prepared commentary...well scripted we hope. The reason for this reading change is rather straight forward. The council believes we are going into a portion of Matthew's text that contains important theological philosophies by Jesus that merit in-depth consideration....the most important being the establishment of a covenant. Professor Stenpnizer is going to kick off this special commentary. Bob, if you will please.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Thank you Robin. I need to point out that there isn't an abrupt start to Jesus' theology-philosophy....it's that we are now getting into nitty-gritty stuff where we council members take issue with Bible translators and commentators, and, I might add, even a little of the Greek texts as well. In the texts just read by Michael, Jesus is already engaging in theological philosophies. They need to be studied carefully and we have no argument with the modern Bible versions if they are reasonably close to the Greek. To give the audience a better feel for what is going on, the format is going to change some...the harmonization the council has created will be made more detailed. In order to expedite the presentation the actors will now speak from their chairs without standing at the podium. Michael, will you please continue where you left off.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they thought up a fresh question of their own to ask him. One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest precept in the Law? Jesus replied, **"Love the Lord-God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'. This first precept is the greatest. The second is similar: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two precepts the**_ [whole] _of the law hangs and_ [what was told by] _the prophets_ [as well] _._

PROF. STENPNIZER:

I need to interrupt to point out we have substituted the word "precept" for the word "commandment" found in all English translations we are aware of. This substitution is based on our conviction that it is impossible to command the emotion of love. Further linguistic authorities state that precept is an acceptable alternative for word command in the Greek language (0ne of the possible meanings for precept is "a concise statement of a general truth"). Here the precept (truth) would be: it is a good moral conviction to have love in your heart, mind and soul for God; an unconditional love at that according to Jesus.

Here Jesus has excerpted a phase from Leviticus (love your neighbor as yourself) and combined it with a phrase from Deuteronomy (love the Lord-God......). The complete passage from Deuteronomy is quoted by Jesus in Mark's gospel to be considered next. So as further evidence let's consider the similar incident reported in Mark's gospel. Johnathan if you would please.

APOSTLE PETER:

_Now one of the scribes that had come up and had heard them_ [the sadducees] _disputing, knowing that Jesus had given them a good answer, asked him: "Which commandment is first of all? Jesus answered: **"The first is, 'Hear O Israel, Our Lord-God is one'"**_

PROF. STENPNIZER:

I am going to interrupt right here Johnathon. Jesus response is a quotation taken from the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. The first part is unquestionably a command: "Hear O Israel" found in a number of places in the Old Testament. The second part "Our Lord-God is one" is a statement of fact to be accepted or rejected. Therefore in our opinion neither part is what we consider to be a precept. The "first" and the "greatest" are two different theological questions which are not to be conflated. Unfortunately they are conflated in the source which Jesus quotes. In Jesus' response according to Mark's gospel the two are therefore also conflated and we consider this to be a confusing textural error. The error is compounded by some translations substituting "important" for "first" suggesting "greatest".

Please continue Johnathon with Jesus' repeating the "greatest" precept in Mark's gospel account immediately following the forgoing quotation from Deuteronomy.

APOSTLE PETER:

And you shall Love the Lord-God with all your heart and with your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: "love your neighbor as yourself". No other precept is greater than these.

The expert in religious law replied, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth by saying that there is only one God and no other. And I know it is important to love the Lord-God with all my heart and all my understanding and all my strength, and to love my neighbors as myself. This is more important than to offer all of the burnt offerings and sacrifices required in the law."

Jesus, impressed with this man's intelligent discernment, said to him, **"You are not far from the spirit realm."** After that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Here Jesus makes a clear distinction between understanding the spirit realm and earthly religious practices. That his religious tormentors were silenced adds extra weight to his statement. We should again point out that we have substituted "spiritual realm" for the "kingdom of the God" which is in the Greek texts. O.K let's continue.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, Jesus asked them a question: **"What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?"** They replied, "He is the son of David." Jesus responded, **"Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him Lord? For David said, 'The Lord-God said to my Lord, Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.' Since David called him Lord, how can he be his son at the same time?"** No one could answer him. And the crowd listened to him with great interest.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Yes, and we too should listen with great interest as the crowds did back then for now we are the crowds in effect....Jesus' teachings are for posterity. We note that here at the temple plaza, Jesus is sermonizing to the crowd in plain speech; Jesus is not speaking in parables. I strongly believe in the theory that Jesus orchestrated the end of his life back to where he initiated this final journey to Jerusalem in the face of death threats as we heard earlier. It goes part and parcel with his consultation with astrologers in Hebron to get the crucifixion timing correct. This timing was in contradistinction to the orthodox Jewish calendar for this Passover ceremony; but that is an aside. Jesus is deadly serious in this important episode because he knew this would be his last chance to get his message across to the people; and I must add, to us. We need to give thought to the import of what Jesus is saying here....not that we, the council, understand it completely either.

It seems to us that, in the passage just read, Jesus is underscoring what he implied earlier in the scripture when he said 'who are my mother, brothers and sisters?' Once again we note he did not include 'father' in that question to the Pharisees. This statement about David will also have significance when we soon will encounter his statement about his father in Matthew's text. To us, putting these texts together, Jesus appears to limit his genealogical history but does so ambiguously. The importance humans place on 'blood lines' may be one of those 'wisdoms' that are so much foolishness to God. For sure we know from history that carried to the extreme as in the Middle Ages with the Royal Houses of Incest, intense blood lines do not produce good results. On the other hand our claim that Mary was a 'birth-mother' may not be completely true either. Medical science is finding out how complex the biological activity in the womb is. Edgar Cayce readings indicate how carefully the Essenes groomed prospective virgins for generations....there is more to it than meets the eye so to speak. Jesus, it would seem, is beautifully ambiguous about it all. Another thing I wish to point out is in the 'David teaching' where, once again, Jesus seems to be alluding to a reincarnation scenario as he did with John the Baptist and as elaborated upon in the Cayce readings. Oh, oh, the producers are indicating I have wondered too far off the script, so Michael would you continue.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

Then Jesus said to the crowds, **"The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Scriptures. So practice and obey whatever they say to you, but don't follow their example, for they don't practice what they teach. They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden. Everything they do is for show."**

APOSTLE PETER:

_As he taught_ [the crowds] _Jesus said, **"Beware of these teachers of religious law. For they parade in flowing robes and have everyone bow to them as they walk in the marketplaces; and how they want to have the seats of honor in the synagogues and at banquets. But they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property, and then, to cover up the kind of people they really are, they make long prayers in public. Because of this, they will receive a greater judgment."**_

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

" _On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear extra long tassels on their robes. How they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the most prominent seats in the synagogue. They enjoy the attention they get on the streets, and they enjoy being called 'Rabbi.'"_

PROF. STENPNIZER:

We are now at a point where each verse will be individually examined. Certain words in the next few verses seem to be "volatile" among Bible translations and we can't get into all the permutations. The verses will be taken in sequence as they are found in Mathew chapter 23. We begin with verse 8. The popular NIV translation is being used.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

[Turning to us he said,] "Don't ever let anyone call you 'Rabbi' for you have only one teacher, [ME] and all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters."

PROF. STENPNIZER:

In our modern world the word "Rabbi" has lost some of its luster, being generally applied to any Jew trained and ordained for professional religious leadership. But not too long before Jesus' birth, the word came in use as a form of address, a title of respect and honor with the meaning "great one" or "excellent one" and in a de facto sense as respected teacher. Certain "learned" scribes and teachers of the law who had garnered prestigious positions demanded to be greeted in this fashion and were proud of it. Here Jesus is condemning such 'title seeking' by his followers. Today it would seem that I and some of my professional colleagues (not naming names here) still fall into this temptation. Jesus is claiming the authority of being THE teacher for the material-non material interface. Mary Magdalene, arguably the best "student" of the Messiah, called him "Rabboni" with the understanding of "my Master Teacher" having the meaning of excellence, not dominance.

A respected commentator, Albert Barnes, who lived over a hundred years ago but whose work is still referenced, had this to say: "This title,["Rabbi"] corresponds with the title "Doctor of Divinity" as applied to ministers of the gospel; and, so far as I can see, the spirit of the Savior's command is violated by the reception of such a title, as really as it would have been by their being called "Rabbi." It makes a distinction among ministers. It tends to engender pride and a sense of superiority in those who obtain it, and envy and a sense of inferiority in those who do not; and the whole spirit and tendency of it is contrary to the "simplicity that is in Christ."

I Don't want to step on toes , but Anton dear, didn't you just receive some honorary titles we heard about fairly recently........like yesterday.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Are you a little bit jealous?

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Heavens no!!

[The audience beginning to catch on starts to snicker and laugh

"I'm not going to give them up! "[audience sustained laughter]

"Aw, come-on Anton be a sport, it won't do you any harm to give them up. Besides you're the one preaching to the rest of us to follow Jesus' teaching." [Some applause]

"Doctor of Divinity Stenpnizer are you one to throw stones?" [More laughter]

"Well no; I'm just trying to make a point!"

CHAIRMAN:

Boys, the producers are giving me the red light...can we get back to the symposium?

PROF. FRENKEL:

Bob, if your point is we should not be hypocritical then I agree. I would like to point out several things relative to what you have brought up that has a strong bearing on the symposium First of all, Albert Barnes is referred to as "Mr." so perhaps his remark may contain a bit of jealousy itself. Secondly, Jesus allowed himself be called Rabboni. I allow you, it is a sensitive issue. But it is my opinion that Jesus wants a clear cut distinction made on his authority in regard to his philosophical teachings we have record of. We grant him the position of being no ordinary human if we subscribe to his virgin birth and visible resurrection to which no other human can give provable evidence. Third, we give disservice, even I might say, dishonor, if we allow common men to take away, supersede or deny Jesus' authority. There are so many examples of this in the gospel texts that were just read where Jesus attacks his opponents on this issue. Dishonoring Jesus in this way continued after his death and still does to this day. Even with Paul it is a problem. Paul wanted badly to be known as an "Apostle" to give his philosophical teachings authority. And some of his teachings are in opposition to those of Jesus.

I might add Jesus had nothing to say about what occupations we are to choose. He instead concentrated on telling us to do the will of God his father without defining what that "will" entails. What he does make clear is how we are to live no matter what we do to survive; and this includes honoring his teaching authority. I for one want to cling to the life style to which I have become accustomed which is pretty far beneath the "one per-centers"!

[The audience , as a body, rises to their feet with laughter and applause.]

CHAIRMAN:

Ladies and Gentlemen please be seated, we need to continue; Bob.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Alright, to continue with the volatile words; surprisingly enough, one is "teacher". Commentaries and some translations even, substitute "Master". Master is a stretch translation and scholars debate the issue...again I must avoid involvement in that debate.

PROF. AGAISTER:

Some analysts rank the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" (NWT) Bible among the most accurate if not the most accurate translation (overall). Here is how verse 8 is translated in the NWT: "...do not you (plural) be called Rabbi, for one is your (plural) teacher, whereas all [of] you (plural) are brothers." Note the word teacher is used.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Thank you for that Joe. I think this discussion makes it clear that Jesus wants to be known as the world's chief authority or teacher on those philosophical issues he addresses. Next we have to get into the Greek texts themselves to dig further into the problem word "father" that Anton brought up in the first session. Michael will first give the reading as found in contemporary Bibles...this reading is from the NIV; Matthew chapter 23 verse 9.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven

PROF. AGAISTER:

Here is how the NWT translates verse 9: "Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One" (emphasis and capitalization theirs). The translations are not identical but nearly so. Even this aspect of Bible translation, if studied in some depth, would be worthy of another symposium. Our purpose here is to simply show that the translations we have are reasonable. Bible scholars have spent countless hours in and out of committees to come up with these translations and we must appreciate that tremendous effort. But what if the Greek texts themselves have been subjected to inaccurate rendering either in the original from Matthew's notes or in subsequent tampering? Obviously, at this time we can prove nothing in this regard. Perhaps, some-day, an original "original" will surface by some miracle and some of the mystery swept aside. We noted earlier evidence for suspicion of prejudicial writing in the Greek texts.

If we attempt to set aside this prejudice and make clear Jesus' intent that he had no earthly father, Joseph for instance as some insist, than a more meaningful exposition or extreme paraphrase could be something like:

Call no man upon the earth [my, (the Son of Man),] father.

This approach is helpful to understanding the second portion of verse nine.

In these particular verses in the Greek there is the Greek word "humoon". This word is particularly unhelpful and there is good reason to be suspicious of it. It occurs in the so-called "Received Text' as used by Strong but not in the Westcott and Hort's "critical" Greek text. Subsequently the word is not found at all in "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament". It serves no purpose to get into all this except to give you some indication of the uncertainties involved in dealing with Greek manuscripts. If we substitute 'my' for 'your' than we arrive at our paraphrase of this portion of verse nine:

My father is the heavenly One

The complete verse nine as we have it then reads:

Moreover, call no man upon the earth my father; for my father is the heavenly One.

So much for that issue, we continue with the next verse in the NIV translation.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

" _Nor are you to be called "teacher," for you have one Teacher, the Christ."_

PROF. AGAISTER:

Here is how the NWT translates verse 10 and its translation is in agreement with the Horton et. al. Greek text:

" _Neither be called 'leaders', for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ"_

Note that "leader" occurs, not "teacher". The fundamental problem is the underlying Greek word is itself ambiguous. Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives two definitions the first being leader. The second definition is teacher. Leader seems to us to appeal logically, as it did to the NWT translators, because the teaching aspect of Jesus was just considered in dealing with "Rabbi". There is much less ambiguity with the word Rabbi. Further, support for this view is found in Luke chapter 22, verse 26 where Jesus, by implication, refers to himself as a "leader". Here a different Greek word is used which has a definitive "leader" meaning. I also need to point out the American Standard Bible translation uses the word "leader". From all this, and considering the Bible as a whole, we get the impression that a better rendition is "commanding leader". The paraphrased verse then is:

" _Nor are you to be called "leader," for you have one commanding leader, Me, the Messiah."_

PROF. AGAISTER (continues):

We have taken the liberty of using these paraphrases in our eyewitness harmonization, a separate document containing only the three eyewitness scriptures of the symposium and which is undergoing preparation by the council. O.K. Michael it's back to you.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

[Turning back to the crowd] _he said, **"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you won't let others enter the spirit realm, and you won't go in yourselves. Yes, how terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn him into twice the son of Gehenna as you yourselves are. Blind guides! How terrible it will be for you! For you say that it means nothing to swear 'by God's Temple' — you can break that oath. But then you say that it is binding to swear 'by the gold in the Temple.' Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to take an oath 'by the altar' can be broken, but to swear 'by the gifts on the altar' is binding! How blind! Which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear 'by the altar,' you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear 'by the Temple,' you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear 'by heaven,' you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne. How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, but you ignore the important things of the law — justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but you should not leave undone the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel! How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are so careful to clean the outside of a cup and the pan, but inside you are filthy — full of greed and self-indulgence! Blind Pharisees! First wash the inside of the cup, and then the outside will become clean, too. How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs — beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people's bones and all sorts of impurity. You try to look like upright people outwardly, but inside your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed and decorate the graves of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. Then you say, 'We never would have joined them in killing the prophets.' In saying that, you are accusing yourselves of being the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead. Finish what they started! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of Gehenna? I will send you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. You will kill some by crucifixion and whip others in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will become guilty of murdering all the godly people from righteous Abel to Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered in the Temple between the altar and the sanctuary. Truly, I assure you, all the accumulated judgment of the centuries will break upon the heads of this very generation."**_

_Jesus_ [looked out over the city and] _began to cry. **"I wish that even today you would find the way of peace. But now it is too late, and peace is hidden from you. Before long your enemies will build ramparts against your walls and encircle you and close in on you. They will crush you to the ground, and your children with you. Your enemies will not leave a single stone in place, because you have rejected the opportunity God offered you. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me. And now look, your house is left to you, empty and desolate. For I tell you this, you will never see me again until you say, 'Bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord'"**_

CHAIRMAN: Robert you wish to comment?

PROF. STENPNIZER:

Comment? No! I don't want to comment on these sad, sad predictions by Jesus on the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Other authorities give descriptions on how horrible the siege of Jerusalem was. I just want to say we come now to a portion of Matthew where Jesus predicts the future as he did in the portion just read but now it is a world-wide prediction. The predictions in both Mathew's account and in Mark are confused or conflated as we humble servants of the word say [audience laughter]. Some analysts have separated them out...that part referring to the destruction of Jerusalem from the end times so called, when the heavens and earth are destroyed. My personal view, and much of the council's for that matter, concurs with scientific speculation...that these end times will occur at the demise of the sun....some time quite far out to put it mildly. So much for that. Let's hear Matthew's account combined with Mark's, and a little part from Luke's gospel as well. We hear again Jesus prediction of Jerusalem's end. Hopefully we have straightened the predictions out. Michael will give this reading.

APOSTLE MATTHEW:

_As Jesus was leaving the Temple grounds, we pointed out to him the various Temple buildings. But he told us, **"Do you see all these buildings? Truly, I assure you, they will be so completely demolished...that not one stone will be left on top of another!"** Later, Jesus sat on the slopes of the Mount of Olives_ [all alone] _. We, his disciples, came to him privately and_ [one] _asked, "When will all this take place? And will there be any sign ahead of time to signal your return and the end of the world?"_

" _Before the end, the time will_ [soon] _come when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about: the sacrilegious object that causes desecration standing in the 'Holy Place'. Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. A person outside the house must not go inside to pack. A person in the field must not return even to get a coat. How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for mothers nursing their babies in those days. And pray that your flight will not be in winter or on the Sabbath._

_Then if anyone tells you, 'Look, here is the Messiah,' or 'There he is,' don't pay any attention. For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great miraculous signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God's chosen ones. See, I have warned you. And be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles_ [also] _. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit_ [from your genitor] _will be speaking through you._

[In later times] _My followers will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. They will be hated all over the world because of their allegiance to me. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved._

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Divisions will come about: a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

And many false prophets will appear and will lead many people astray. Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. And wars will break out near and far, but don't panic. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Yes, these things must come, but the end won't follow immediately. The nations and kingdoms will proclaim war against each other, and there will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this will be only the beginning of the horrors to come. So if someone tells you, 'Look, the Messiah is out in the desert,' don't bother to go and look. Or, 'Look, he is hiding here,' don't believe it! For as the lightning lights up the entire sky, so it will be when the Son of Man comes. Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.

And the Good News about the Spirit Realm will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then, finally, the end will come. Just before the end there will be a time of greater horror than anything the world has ever seen or will ever see again. In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, the entire human race will have been destroyed. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's chosen ones. Immediately, after those horrible days occur, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then, at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send forth his angels with the sound of a mighty trumpet blast, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.

_Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its buds become tender and its leaves begin to sprout, you know without being told that summer is near. Just so, when you see the events I've described beginning to happen, you can know his return is very near, right at the door. Truly, I assure you, this generation will not pass from the scene before all these things take place._ [The Heavens] _and earth will disappear, but my words will remain forever._

However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son himself; only my father knows. When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah's day. In those days before the Flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. The people didn't realize what was going to happen until the Flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. Two men will be working together in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Two women will be grinding flour at the mill; one will be taken, the other left. So be prepared, because you don't know what day your Lord is coming.

_A homeowner who knew exactly when a burglar was coming would stay alert and not permit the house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man will come when least expected."_ [Jesus continued with another example.] _"Who then is a faithful, sensible servant, to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his household and feeding his family? If the master returns and finds that a servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. Truly, I assure you, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. But if a servant is evil and thinks, 'My master won't be back for a while,' and begins oppressing the other servants, partying, and getting drunk — well, the master will return unannounced and unexpected. He will tear the servant apart and banish him, with the hypocrites, to that place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth._

_At that time the_ [coming of The Son of Man and the] _Spirit Realm can be further illustrated by the story of ten bridesmaids who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. The five who were foolish took no [extra] oil for their lamps, but the other five were wise enough to take along extra oil in separate containers. When the bridegroom was delayed, they all lay down and slept. At midnight they were roused by the shout, 'Look, the bridegroom is coming! Come out and welcome him!' All the bridesmaids got up and prepared their lamps. Then the five foolish ones asked the others, 'Please give us some of your oil because our lamps are going out.' But the others replied, 'We don't have enough for all of us. Go to a shop and buy some for yourselves.' But while they were gone to buy oil, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was locked. Later, when the other five bridesmaids returned, they stood outside, calling, 'Sir, open the door for us!' But he called back, 'I don't know you!' So stay awake and be prepared, because you do not know the day or hour of my return._

_Again,_ [in the spirit realm] _it will be like a man going on a trip. He called together his servants and gave them money to invest for him while he was gone. He gave five bags of silver to one, two bags of silver to another, and one bag of silver to the last — dividing it in proportion to their abilities — and then left on his trip."_ [Each bag contained about a 'talent', a unit of measure, --in modern currency about $40,000 in silver coins] _"The servant who received the five bags of silver began immediately to invest the money and soon doubled it. The servant with two bags of silver also went right to work and doubled his money. But the servant who received the one bag dug a hole in the ground and hid the master's money for safekeeping. After a long time their master returned from his trip and called them to give an account of how they had used his money. The servant to whom he had entrusted the five bags of silver said, 'Sir, you gave me five bags of silver to invest, and I have doubled the amount.' The master was full of praise. 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in handling this small amount, so now I will give you many more responsibilities. Let's celebrate together!' Next came the servant who had received the two bags of silver, with the report, 'Sir, you gave me two bags to invest, and I have doubled the amount.' The master said, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in handling this small amount, so now I will give you many more responsibilities. Let's celebrate together!' Then the servant with the one bag of silver came and said, 'Sir, I know you are a hard man, harvesting crops you didn't plant and gathering crops you didn't cultivate. I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid it in the earth and here it is.' But the master replied, 'You wicked and lazy servant! You think I'm a hard man, do you, harvesting crops I didn't plant and gathering crops I didn't cultivate? Well, you should at least have put my money into the bank so I could have had some interest. Take the money from this servant and give it to the one with the ten bags of silver. To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who are unfaithful, even what little they have will be taken away. Now throw this useless servant into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'_

_When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne_ [in judgment] _. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. Then,_ [as] _King, he will say to those on the right, 'Come, you who have been blessed by my father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me, I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home, I was naked, and you gave me clothing, I was sick, and you cared for me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' And the King will tell them, 'I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!' Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons! For I was hungry and you didn't feed me, I was thirsty and you didn't give me anything to drink, I was a stranger and you didn't invite me into your home, I was naked, and you gave me no clothing, I was sick or in prison, and you didn't visit me.' Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' And he will answer, 'I assure you, when you refused to help the least of my brothers and sisters you were refusing to help me.' And they will go away and be cut off from eternal life forever, but the righteous will go into life everlasting."_

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he said to his disciples, **"As you know, the Passover celebration begins in two days, and I, the Son of Man, will be betrayed and crucified."**

At that same time the leading priests and other leaders were meeting at the residence of Caiaphas, the high priest, to discuss how to capture Jesus secretly and put him to death. "But not during the Passover," they agreed, "or there will be a riot."

[Jesus and the disciples returned to Bethany where] _a dinner was prepared in Jesus' honor. Martha served, and Lazarus sat at the table with him. Then Mary took a twelve-ounce jar of expensive perfume made from essence of nard, and she anointed Jesus' feet with it and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with fragrance. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples — the one who would betray him — said, "That perfume was worth a small fortune. It should have been sold and the money given to the poor." Not that he cared for the poor — he was a thief who was in charge of the disciples' funds, and he often took some for his own use. Jesus replied, **"Leave her alone. You will always have the poor among you, but I will not be here with you much longer. Why berate her for doing such a good thing to me? You will always have the poor among you, but I will not be here with you much longer. She has poured this perfumed oil on me to prepare my body for burial. Truly I assure you, wherever the Good News is preached throughout the world, this woman's deed will be told in her memory."**_

Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the leading priests and asked, "How much will you pay me to betray Jesus to you?" And they gave him thirty pieces of silver. From that time on, Judas began looking for the right time and place to betray Jesus.

CHAIRMAN:

This concludes today's portion of the symposium. We return tomorrow at 1:30 to continue with the remaining accounts of the Passion Week. We will also be treated to a special eyewitness account. For those of you in the audience here in the auditorium that would like to participate in discussion groups the council has made accommodations in several rooms in the adjacent conference center for this and these discussions will be led by council members. It should prove to be an interesting if not exciting event in which to engage in question and answer with a council member in a small informal group setting. Don't forget, it is back here tomorrow at 1:30. See you all then.

END OF SATURDAY SESSION

SUNDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

[It is Sunday afternoon. The stage is set up as before. Robin enters between the curtains followed by actors and commentators.]

CHAIRMAN:

Welcome back everyone to this final session of the symposium. The session continues with the "Lord's Supper" which is found in all four gospels if one includes the foot washing episode found only in John's gospel. We will have Jonathan, as the apostle Peter, read a harmonized rendition of the "sacrament" event based on Mark's version, and this harmonization will include John's account as well. Before we have the reading however, there will be a brief introductory review of the considerations that went into creating this harmonization of the "Lord's Supper". Because of its significance to Christian worship, the council felt it worthwhile to give the audience the benefit of knowing about the considerations which led to this special interpretation or harmonization. Professor Anton Frenkel, chairman of the council will give this important review. Dr. Anton, if you will please.

PROF. FRENKEL:

Thank you Robin. Yes we, the council, have given special consideration to the presentation of those final days in the life and teaching of the Master. Jesus himself made it important and, consequently, we also rank it highly; second only to "The Sermon on the Mount" in importance. This is so because Jesus announced the creation of another or "new" Covenant between humanity and the Spiritual Realm. This covenant is celebrated the world over in Christian congregations with various symbolic re-creations of what is known as the "Lord's Supper". There is no uniform practice in this regard and we shall not get into the various interpretations and symbolism the different sects of Christianity use.

The importance of this covenant is also highlighted by some aspect of the ceremonies appearing in all the gospels and in Paul's writing as well. I will read all these accounts as they appear in the New Testament except John's which does not contain the covenant per se. I begin with that from Matthew. Wherever possible and whenever necessary, we have made use of transliterations from the Greek manuscripts themselves. Also commentaries written by others outside the council have been considered.

In our opinion it is likely Matthew, as a dinner attendee, was not prepared for note taking, not anticipating the significance of what was to transpire. The direct quotations attributable to Jesus would be as Matthew remembered them and possibly wrote down during or soon after the crucifixion when the apostles were in hiding. Further, remember that Matthew's notes were re-worked by scribes trained in Greek. I will pass over that part of Matthew's account dealing with Judas' betrayal. I begin with Matthew chapter 26, verse 20 and then skip over to verse 26:

THE COVENANT

MATTHEW version

' _Now when evening had come, he was reclining at a table with the twelve disciples. While they were........eating Jesus took a loaf, and after giving a blessing, broke it and having given_ [the pieces] _to his disciples, he said:_

"Take it, all of you, and eat, this is my body".

_Then he took_ [a] _cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them_ [in turn] _saying:_

" _Drink out of it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant about which is being poured over many for forgiveness of sins."_

I must take note that we have added the term "the pieces" of bread to the Matthew text to provide clarification...it is not found in the Greek. We will comment later on these added terms when the harmonized version is presented. Next we have Mark's account of the covenant. As we have stated a number of times now in the symposium, we suppose that Mark is writing on the behalf of Peter who, as we would have it, is remembering the incident, long since passed, as best he can (including the direct quotes). Whether or not Peter had Matthew's notes before him is a matter of further conjecture. I begin the reading at Mark chapter 14, verse 22:

MARK version

_And as they were eating, Jesus took a loaf_ [and] _having blessed_ [it] _, he broke_ [it] _and gave_ [the pieces] _to them and said:_

" _You take, this is my body."_

And having taken a cup, having offered thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them:

" _This is my blood of the covenant that is being poured out over many."_

Luke assimilated accounts from sources unknown to us, which of course included the 'Last Supper'. It is possible he had contact with one or more Apostles but if so he must not have been impressed since he did not say so. It is really fruitless to speculate other than to say we value his rendition, but give it less authority than Matthew's and Peter's. Luke presents a different scenario from that of Matthew and Peter and a different sequence. Luke's rendition starting at chapter 22:14, has the disciples drinking the cup of wine twice. The after meal drinking seems more appropriate and keeps eating the bread first in accordance with the other gospel accounts. Starting at verse 19 one reads:

LUKE version

_And having taken (a) loaf, having thanked, he broke_ [it] _and he gave to them saying:_

" _This is my body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."_

In the same way, after the supper, he took the cup, saying:

" _This_ [is] _the cup of the new covenant in my blood which is poured out over you."_

PROF. FRENKEL continues:

Apparently the writer John didn't want to embroil himself in a controversy over the interpretation of Jesus' covenant which may have been brewing back then since he does not give an account of the 'sacraments'. The administration of the 'sacraments' has been a contentious issue ever since, that much is known. Even in 'modern, enlightened times' it has caused denominational rifts (schisms). Instead, John focused on the other ceremonial event, the washing of the disciples' feet. This depiction, while of great importance, does not interest us here in this discussion, so we continue with Paul's rendition.

Paul of course was not an eye witness to the supper event, but he claimed his version was by "divine inspiration". Whether that was true or not is anybody's guess. What has been established through research is that the human mind is murky and quirky. Past remembrances stored in the "subconscious" can, after a passage of time, re-appear to the mind as original thought and the mind can interpret it as "inspiration". After his "conversion" Paul was ministered to by the new Christians in Damascus who would have, we think, administered the covenant ceremony with Paul. It was years later that Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthian congregation...we are suspicious of Paul's attribution' that is all. But because of it, in our opinion, its authority is lower even than Luke's. However it came about, here is what Paul wrote including direct quotes by Jesus and I start at First Corinthians chapter 11, verse 23:

PAUL version

' _For I received from the lord what I passed on to you: The Lord Jesus in the night he was betrayed took (a) loaf and having given thanks, he broke (it) and said:_

" _This is my body which (is) over you. This you are to do in remembrance of me."_

In the same manner, after having supper, he took the cup saying:

" **This cup is the new covenant in my blood**

This you are to do as often as you drink in the remembrance of me."

PROF. FRENKEL continues:

What is truly remarkable about these accounts is their being identical, or nearly so, almost adamantly so, in saying 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood'. Interpretation of this core teaching of Jesus by theologians down through the centuries since Jesus spoke them have varied from strict literalism to completely allegorical. What is plainly obvious is that what Jesus is saying is not plainly obvious. While the sermon on the mount is relatively easy to comprehend since it deals mostly with the material; just the opposite is true here...the subject is opaquely spiritual But what if neither a literal interpretation nor an allegorical one is appropriate? The first, literalism is couched in the theological term 'transubstantiation' which word Jesus seems to avoid using. The second would require, to be explicit, additional words like 'means' or 'think of this as' etc.....words not found in any 'new covenant' manuscript but which are found in his parables read earlier.

Consider further the incident recorded by John in our version that was read to you not too long ago where all the disciples fled after Jesus said 'eat my flesh' and 'drink my blood' because, taking Jesus literally, they were disgusted. Peter gave the reason why the twelve didn't defect as well. This is what Peter said as the chosen "Rock" of understanding:

"Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know you are the holy one of God."

Those words by Peter are found in John chapter six, verses 68 and 69. Jesus rewarded their allegiance by saying, as recorded in John chapter 6 starting at verse 61:

" _ **Does this** [my words] **offend you? What if you behold the Son of man ascending to where he was formerly? It is the Spirit that is life-giving. The flesh is of no value. The sayings I have said to you are spirit and is life."**_

We interpret the covenant sayings in the same light; as a spiritual and life unification about which our language fails us as did the language back then for Jesus. Our language fails us because our knowledge fails us....of non-reality we have little or no knowledge. We can only 'feel' the sense of it as individuals. Jesus said he was 'one' with his father or even 'in' his father and the converse thereof. Does the covenant imply this same one-ness, the same in-ness that we are to seek by remembering him; an ethereal unification of the physical reality with non-physical spiritual realty? This is about as far as we can take the covenant subject in this symposium; besides we are running short on time. Perhaps in a future symposium, after receiving thoughtful feedback from those outside the council and reflecting on it, deeper probing can be accomplished. With that I turn the stage back to you Jonathan.

APOSTLE PETER:

" _On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread I asked Jesus, "Where do you want us to go to prepare for the Passover supper?" So Jesus sent two of us into Jerusalem to make the arrangements. **"As you go into the city,"** he told us, **"a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you. Follow him. At the house he enters, say to the owner, 'The Teacher asks, "Where is the guest room where I can eat the Passover meal with my disciples?' He will take you upstairs to a large room that is already set up. That is the place; go ahead and prepare our supper there."** So we went on ahead into the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and we had the Passover supper prepared there._

_In the evening Jesus arrived with all of us twelve disciples. As we were reclining around the table_ [just as we were about ready to start] _eating, Jesus said, **"The truth is, one of you will betray me, one of you who is here eating with me."** Greatly distressed, one by one we began to ask him, "I'm not the one, am I?" He replied, **"It is one of you twelve, one who is eating with me now. For I, the Son of Man, must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago; but how terrible it will be for my betrayer. Far better for him if he had never been born!**_

As we were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, said a blessing, broke it in pieces and gave them to us, saying: **"Take it, all of you, this is my body."**

APOSTLE JOHN:

While the evening meal was being served, Jesus got up from the table, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin. Then he began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel he had around him. He came to Simon Peter who said to him, "Lord, why are you going to wash my feet?" Jesus replied, **"You don't understand now why I am doing it; but someday you will."** "No," Peter protested, "you will never wash my feet!" Jesus replied, **"If I don't wash you, you won't belong to me."** Then Peter exclaimed, "Then wash my hands and head as well, Lord, not just my feet!" Jesus replied, **"A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean. And you are clean, but that isn't true of everyone here."** For Jesus knew who would betray him. That is what he meant when he said, **"Not all of you are clean."** After washing our feet, he put on his robe again and sat down and asked, **"Do you understand what I was doing? You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and you are right, because it is true. And since I, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet. I have given you an example to follow. Do as I have done to you. So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you are to love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples."**

APOSTLE PETER:

[After the meal was over, and] taking a cup of wine, having offered thanks, he gave it to us; and he said: "Drink from it all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant being poured out over many for the forgiveness of their sins."

And we all drank from it in turn. Then Jesus said, **"Truly, I solemnly declare that I will not drink wine again until that day when I drink it anew in the Kingdom of God with you."**

CHAIRMAN:

"Doctor "F" you wish to comment?"

PROF. FRENKEL:

Yes please....just a few things here that I previously said I would return to...so like it not here we go. First notice the sequencing. In agreement with Luke we have the ceremonial cup of wine after the meal completion. Although we did not add the adjective 'ceremonial' to word cup, other commentators do. I didn't comment before on the emphasis Jesus must have made, I believe, on the word "all" when offering the bread and wine.

Remember the traitor (so called), Judas, a "most dreadful sinner" ate and drank with the rest at Jesus' insistence. And yet even today, some would deny the sacraments to those not meeting certain "external" criteria. This exclusiveness would seem to go back to some well meaning but misguided teaching by Paul in First Corinthians . His philosophies on covenant attendance have been the cause of many schisms in the community of believers and are not supported by the teachings of Jesus. OH-OH, wrist slapping time again....back we go to you Jonathan.

APOSTLE PETER:

" _ **I am not saying these things to all of you; I know so well each one of you that I chose. The Scriptures declare, 'The one who shares my food has turned against me,' and this will soon come true. I tell you this now, so that when it happens you will believe I am the Messiah."** Now Jesus was in great anguish of spirit, and he exclaimed, **"The truth is, one of you will betray me!"** We disciples looked at each other, wondering whom he could mean. John was sitting next to Jesus at the table. I motioned to John to ask who would do this terrible thing. Leaning toward Jesus, John asked, "Lord, who is it?" Jesus said, **"It is the one to whom I give the bread dipped in the sauce."** And when he had dipped it, he gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas had eaten the bread, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus told him, **"Hurry. Do it now."** None of us at the table knew what Jesus meant. Since Judas was their treasurer, some thought Jesus was telling him to go and pay for the food or to give some money to the poor. So Judas left at once, going out into the night. Jesus said to us, **"All of you will be stumbled, because it is written, 'I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered about.' But after I have been raised up, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."** I said to him, "Even if everyone else is stumbled, I will not be." And Jesus replied,_ [looking me straight in the eye] _, **"Peter, the truth is, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will disown me three times." "** No!" I insisted. "Not even if I have to die with you! I will never disown_ [deny] _you!" And all the others vowed the same._

_When we had sung a hymn, we all went out across the Kidron valley to the olive grove. And we arrived at_ [a part of the Mount of Olives] _named Gethsemane, and he said to all the disciples, **"Sit down here while I go and pray."** Then he took me, James, and John with him, and he began to be stunned and deeply troubled. He told us, **"My soul is deeply grieved until death. You**_ [three] _**stay here and stay awake."** We saw him go a little further and fall down in prayer._

_The next thing I remember happening was Jesus shaking me awake_ [for we were all sleeping] _and he said to me, **"Simon! Are you sleeping? Did you not have strength enough to stay awake even one hour? Keep awake and pray. Otherwise temptation will overpower you. For indeed, the spirit is eager, but the body is weak."** Then Jesus left and again_ [fell down in prayer] _. And again he returned to us and found us sleeping, for we just couldn't keep our eyes open. And we didn't know what to say. When he returned to us the third time, Jesus said, **"You have had enough sleep and resting up. The hour has come that I, the Son of Man, am betrayed into the hands of sinners. Come on...get up; let's be going. See, my betrayer is here!"**_

As he said this, Judas, arrived with a mob that was armed with swords and clubs. We learned later that they had been sent out by the chief priests, the teachers of religious law, and the Jewish leaders. Judas had given them a prearranged signal: "You will know which one is Jesus when I go over and give him a kiss. Then you seize him and lead him away safely."

_Judas walked straight up to Jesus and said. "Master Teacher!" and gave him a kiss. Then the others grabbed Jesus and seized him. But I pulled out a sword and slashed off an ear of the high priest's servant._ [Later I was told that Jesus had healed the man right there and then after rebuking me] _Jesus asked them, **"Am I some dangerous criminal, that you come armed with swords and clubs to arrest me? Why didn't you arrest me in the Temple? I was there teaching every day. But these things are happening to fulfill what the Scriptures say about me."** Then all of us deserted him and ran away._

[It wasn't too long after all of us fled into Jerusalem to seek safety that John and I overcame some of our fear, partly because no one seemed to be following us, and because John had protection because of his father's position in government. Somehow John suspected that Jesus had been taken to the high priest's home where the leading priests, other leaders, and teachers of religious law had gathered in expectancy. So I followed John there and he was recognized and went right in, while I was left behind. But I slipped inside the gates of the high priest's courtyard.] For a while I sat with the guards, warming myself by the fire. One of the servant girls who worked for the high priest noticed me warming myself at the fire. She looked at me closely and then said, "You were one of those with Jesus, the Nazarene." I denied it. "I don't know what you're talking about," I said, and I went back out into the entryway. Another servant girl saw me standing there and began telling the others, "That man is definitely one of them!" I denied it again. A little later some other bystanders began saying to me, "You must be one of them because you are from Galilee. Your accent gives you away." I still have a hard time believing what I said without thinking, "I swear by God, I don't know this man you're talking about." Immediately a rooster crowed, and only then did I recall what Jesus had said just a short time before: "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." [Running away from the courtyard,] I broke down and cried bitterly.

PROF. AGAISTER:

This concludes Peter's eyewitness account as found in Mark's gospel as we have it. Most scholars believe Peter would have dictated more concerning Jesus death and resurrection; at least that part to which he was an eyewitness; but if so that portion of Mark's gospel has been lost.

PROF. STENPNIZER:

While Matthew's account continues with the trial and crucifixion, it cannot be an eyewitness account since our best guess is that he remained in hiding; nor for that matter can Luke's be by him. John on the other hand claims to have been at the cross as an eyewitness. But since fervent Jews would not enter Pilate's palace much of the rest of John's account is problematic from this standpoint. Since the so called "passion" texts are well known, we have therefore decided not to include them in the presentation with the exception of a portion of John's gospel.

PROF. FRENKEL:

That leaves us with John's account but as Prof. Stenpnizer mentioned, even some of it is problematic. Caiaphas had gathered some members of the Sanhedrin at the last moment for what amounted to a shame, and probably illegal, trial of Jesus. While John could have and, according to his gospel did, go into Caiaphas' house to witness this first trial, we have our doubts about his witnessing the subsequent interrogations and torture of Jesus before Herod and Pilate. According to John's account these later trials took place on the day of preparation and the Jews were very reluctant to enter Pilate's palace and be considered unclean and therefore unable to participate in the Passover. We suspect John likewise would not have entered for this reason. Thus we believe all the later trial and torture events came from trial records secreted out from under Pilate's watchful eye by Essene sympathizers. Moreover we wish not to present those details anyway; they already are well known to the majority of Christians, and they add nothing to our knowledge of Jesus' teachings or ministry. However, we do believe it is important to present John's eyewitness of the Golgotha scene where John was present at the foot of the cross. So we continue with that portion of John's account. This eyewitness account by John disputes much of the romantic notions currently popular in the media. So Benjamin if you would give the account please."

APOSTLE JOHN:

" _When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his clothes among the four of them. They also took his robe, but it was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said, "Let's not tear it but throw dice to see who gets it." This fulfilled the Scripture that says, "They divided my clothes among themselves and threw dice for my robe." So that is what they did._ [I was] _standing near the cross along with Jesus' mother, and his mother's sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother standing there_ [beside me] _, he said to her, **"Woman, see your son."** And he said to me, **"See your mother."** And from then on I took her into my home._

Jesus knew that everything was now finished, and to fulfill the Scriptures he said, **"I am thirsty."** A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to his lips. When Jesus had tasted it, he said, **"It is finished!"** Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

This all happened on the day of preparation and the Jewish leaders didn't want the victims hanging there the next day, the day of the Passover feast, and certainly not the following day which was the Sabbath (a 'great' Sabbath because it occurred during a Passover), so they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was dead already, so they didn't break his legs. One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. I who witnessed these events has given this testimony. My testimony is accurate and true because I know it to be so; it is presented so that you also can believe. These things happened in fulfillment of the Scriptures that say, "Not one of his bones will be broken," and "They will look on him whom they pierced."

_Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus because he feared the_ [Jewish leaders] _, asked Pilate for permission to take Jesus' body down. When Pilate gave him permission, he came and took the body away. Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night, also came, bringing about seventy-five pounds of embalming ointment made from myrrh and aloes. Together [we] wrapped Jesus' body in a long linen cloth with the spices, as is the Jewish custom of burial. The place of crucifixion was near a garden, where there was a new tomb, never used before. And so, because it was the day of preparation before the Passover and since the tomb was close at hand,_ [we] _laid Jesus there."_

CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Benjamin. We now come to the special eyewitness presentation we promised earlier. It is a most important eyewitness because of its proximity to the resurrection event. It is the witness of Mary Magdalene, perhaps the disciple emotionally closest to Jesus and who is reported to have followed and supported Jesus' ministry in its later stages after Jesus had cured her of serious ailments. She alone is said to have sat at Jesus' feet to listen to his philosophy when others were to busy with their lives to do so. The role of Mary will be taken by Mrs. Anton Frenkel, better known as Marge. It seems Anton wishes to say something.

PROF. FRENKEL:

I feel the need to make a disclaimer. I found out by accident my wife was auditioning for this part in secret to surprise me, so I excused myself from the council's decision process which also included the art department's recommendation. Apparently, her sincerity outweighed other considerations. Needless to say though, I am right proud she was chosen [some audience applause].

PROF. FRENKEL (continues):

While some of what Marge as Mary Magdalene will relate is found in John's gospel, the happening at the tomb is obviously an eyewitness account by Mary Magdalene, not by John. We presume Mary related her witness to the writer of John's gospel although there are some who believe Mary to have been well educated and to have written down her own remembrances which were then incorporated into the gospel. We have modified John's account in accordance with what is found in Matthew's and Luke's accounts to make the reading more understandable. The council also has let some imaginative narration be included so what my wife will recite takes on the character of a modern day myth; quite limited in myth content I might add. So with that said let us proceed.

[The house lights darken completely and the stage curtains are withdrawn to reveal a softly lit garden tomb setting appropriate to what can be imagined for a wealthy and prominent person of that time period. Then brilliant spotlights illuminate the costumed Marge as she enters the garden tomb. The scenario is so delicately beautiful that an audible gasp is heard from the audience. and she is greeted by audience applause. Marge, statuesque woman that she is, is magnificently attired in a black mourning robe which Mary would have worn that Sunday morning. She also has on a traditional but ornate headdress with veil as befitting a wealthy woman of her time but still subdued. [Marge recites from memory.]

MARY MAGDALENE:

My recollection of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of my Lord is seared into my memory. It indeed was terrible at the cross, a nightmare in the making. I and the other women with me had been there since about noon after we heard that Jesus had been nailed to a cross. At first we stood a ways off but then John, because of his influence, got permission for those of us closest to Jesus to get right up to the cross with him. It was a terrifying event. It was so dark and gloomy because of the low lying clouds that had formed and at the end it was completely dark because the sun was eclipsed. Torches had to be lit so that the soldiers at the cross could see. I didn't hear Jesus' last words because Mary had fainted and I and the other women had taken her to safety. But I can still see Jesus hanging there near death in the glare of the torches, and John in tears.

I was determined to give Jesus a proper Jewish ceremonial burial with a washing and perfuming so we had, after taking care of Mary, gone to Jerusalem and purchased what was needed. Because there was so little time left and nobody really knew what time it was with all the darkness and all, Nicodemus and the others had given Jesus a hasty burial to conform to Jewish law about burial before the sun went down. By the time we got back, they had already put Jesus' body in the tomb and then rolled a large stone across the entrance. Because of the Passover and Sabbath restrictions, we had to wait until the next day to go to the tomb and do the proper burial ceremony.

I asked several of my friends to go with me early that morning [Sunday by contemporary reckoning], while it was still dark. We were so upset we didn't consider the fact that the tomb entrance had been closed with a large stone and sealed. Nor were we aware that a contingent of Roman soldiers had been posted to guard the tomb to prevent anyone from taking Jesus' corpse. By the time we came to the tomb the sun had risen and we found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance and it looked like the guards had either been stunned or killed because they were just lying there. That morning there had been another earthquake that awakened me and I thought that what we saw was a consequence of the earthquake. But I was told later that an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled aside the stone and sat on it. They said the angel's face shone like lightning, and the angel's clothing was as white as snow, and the guards had shook with fear when they saw the angel, and they fell into a dead faint. Anyway, when we arrived at the tomb we were totally startled by what we saw and were terribly frightened. And just then at the entrance to the tomb we saw an angel that spoke to us. "Don't be afraid!" the angel said. "I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He isn't here! He has been raised from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying." Despite our fear we entered the tomb and there was only the linen there. "And now," the angel said, "go quickly and tell his disciples he has been raised from the dead, and that he will go ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember, I have told you."

We quickly fled from the tomb. While we were very frightened, we also were filled with great joy. I ran to John's home in Jerusalem to give John and Peter the angel's message. I found Simon Peter and John at home and excitedly told them. "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him!" And then I gave them the angel's message. Peter and John ran to the tomb to see for themselves leaving me far behind. We passed each other by as they headed back to John's home and I saw Peter was carrying the linen we had seen earlier. By the time I got back to the tomb Peter and John had long since come and left and the tomb was completely empty. While I was standing outside the tomb crying, I happened to stoop and look in again. Now I saw two white-robed angels sitting at the head and foot of the place where the body of Jesus would have been lying. "Why are you crying?" the angels asked me. I was so bewildered by what was happening and not fully comprehending, I blurted out, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I don't know where they have put him." Suddenly I felt a presence, hard to describe, but it made me glance over my shoulder and I saw someone standing back a ways behind me. It was Jesus, but I didn't recognize him. Because the way the man I saw was dressed, I first thought he was the gardener because the tomb was in a garden-like cemetery compound for the wealthy. "Why are you crying?" the gardener asked me, "Who are you looking for?" I turned around completely but I still did not recognize Jesus. I said to him, "Sir, if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and raise him up."

"Mary!" Jesus said. Then I recognized him...."Master-Teacher" I cried out! I ran over and fell at his feet. Bowing low on my knees, I tried to reach out to clutch his ankles. "Don't cling to me," Jesus said, "for I haven't yet ascended to my father. But go find my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my father, my God and your God."

Brimming with excitement, I ran from the tomb and once again found John and Peter at home and told them, "I have seen the Lord!" Then I gave them his message: "I am ascending to my father, my God and your God."

[The spotlight fades and the house lights come on dimly as Marge exits the garden and the curtains close. Some in the audience, those not overcome with emotion, uncertain as to what to do, give moderate applause. Dr. Frenkel goes to the podium]

PROF. FRENKEL:

That was most impressive if I do say so myself. I didn't know such talent was hidden under my rafters and no wonder I haven't seen much of her lately [much audience laughter]. Seriously, you know some people must not believe the New Testament at all to come up with their nonsensical myths about what happened to Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Returning to the Biblical account, we next have John's remembrances of some of the appearances by Christ after the resurrection. A brief account by Matthew will be included. Benjamin, will you continue please.

APOSTLE JOHN:

_That evening, on the first day of the week, Peter and_ [I and other] _disciples were meeting behind locked doors because we were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing_ [right] _there among us! **"Peace be with you,"** he said. As he spoke, he held out his hands for us to see, and he showed us his side. We were filled with joy when we saw our Lord! He spoke to us again and said, **"Peace be with you. As**_ [my] _**father has sent me, so I send you."** Then he breathed on us and said, **"Receive the Holy Spirit."**_

_One of the disciples, Thomas_ [nicknamed the Twin] _, was not there with us when Jesus came. We all told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he replied, "I won't believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side." Eight days later we disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with us. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among us. He said, **"Peace be with you."** Then he said to Thomas, **"Put your finger here and see my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don't be faithless any longer; believe!"** "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed. Then Jesus told him, **"You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway."**_

[It was] _later when Jesus appeared again to some of us_ [apostles and] _disciples. We had gone to the Sea of Galilee_ [as he had indicated we should] _but some had tired of waiting and had left. Several of us_ [Apostles] _were there — Simon Peter, Thomas , me and my brother James. Some disciples were there also, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, and two other disciples. This is_ [what] _happened. Simon Peter said, "I'm going fishing." "We'll come, too," we all said. So we went out in the boat, but we caught nothing all night. At dawn we saw_ [a man] _standing on the beach, but we couldn't_ [make out] _who it was._ [The man] _called out, **"Friends, have you caught any fish?"** "No," we replied. Then he said, **"Throw out your net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you'll get plenty of fish!"** So we did, and we couldn't draw in the net because there were so many fish in it. Then I said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that, he put on his tunic (for he had stripped_ [for working] _), jumped into the water, and swam ashore. We others stayed with the boat and pulled the loaded net to the shore, for we were only out about three hundred feet. When we arrived at the shore, we saw that a charcoal fire was burning and fish were frying over it, and there was bread. **"Bring some of the fish you've just caught,"** Jesus said. So Simon Peter went_ [back] _aboard_ [the boat] _and dragged the net_ [onto] _the_ [beach] _. There were 153 large fish, and yet the net hadn't torn._ "Now come and have some breakfast!" _Jesus said. And no one dared ask him who_ [it] _was because we all recognized_ [Jesus] _. Then Jesus served us the bread and fish. This was the third time Jesus appeared to us since he had been raised from the dead._

_After we had eaten Jesus said to Simon Peter, **"Simon son of John, do you love**_ [agapeo] _me more than these_ [other men do] _ **?"** "Yes, Lord," Peter replied, "you know I have affection for you." **"Then feed my lambs,"** Jesus told him. Jesus repeated the question: **"Simon son of John, do you love**_ [agapeo] _**me?"** "Yes, Lord," Peter said, "you know I have affection for you." **"Then take care of my sheep,"** Jesus said. Once more he asked him, **"Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?"** Peter was grieved that Jesus asked the question a third time. He said, "Lord, you know everything. You know I have affection for you." Jesus said, **"Then feed my sheep. The truth is**_ [Peter] _ **, when you were young, you were able to do as you liked and go wherever you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will bind you and take you where you don't want to go."** Then Jesus told him, **"**_ [But you] _**continue to follow me."** Peter turned around and saw me following them?" Peter asked Jesus, "What about him, Lord?" Jesus replied, **"If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You follow me."** So the rumor spread among the community of believers that I wouldn't die. But that isn't what Jesus said at all. He only said, **"If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"**_

[A number of days after this, eleven us apostles] _left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told us to go. When we saw him, we worshiped him — but even then some still doubted! Approaching nearer, Jesus said, " **I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go**_ [and witness in my name] _so that through you, there will become disciples in all the nations, and baptize in my name. Teach these new disciples to observe all the commands I have given you. Have them perceive that I am with them always, even to the end of the age."_

_I saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this scroll. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him_ [and his teachings] _you will have life._

_This is the disciple_ [of] _the one witnessing these things and I_ [am] _the one who wrote his account of these things; and we know his witness is true. Jesus did_ [and said] _much more that has not been written. If it all was written, I suppose the libraries of the world could not contain the books._

[The participants now stand and bow as the audience, sensing this was indeed the end of the symposium but not wanting it to end, start to applaud...finally giving a standing ovation. The participants depart some waving to the audience as they exit between the curtains. They do not return despite the sustained applause. Only the chairman remains; he approaches the podium.]

CHAIRMAN:

This concludes the symposium. It was our pleasure to present it and we hope you enjoyed it....with emphasis on joy. Ladies and Gentlemen we bid you farewell!

[The chairman exits through the curtains which then part to display the large projection screen on which appears these statements by Jesus:]

Love God with all your Heart, Mind, and Soul;

And love your Neighbor as yourself;

And do to others as you would like them to do to you.

You are to have one leader, me, the good shepherd;

The Good Shepherd lays down his Life for his Sheep.

You are to have one teacher, me, the teacher of righteousness.

You call me Lord, Lord, and rightly so because that is who I am;

_Why then don't you do what_ _I_ _say?_

~~~~~ end ~~~~~

Appendices

NOTES

(1) "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" second edition

(2) "Living Words-the Words of Christ in Aramaic-English- Interlinear Edition"

(3) Note the semantic connection in the word inspiration to the root word spirit. Inspire is sometimes translated as in breathing and spirit as life force, both with theistic implication.

(4) At about the end of the "dark ages" Turkish Muslim conquers built the largest mosque in the world part of which is now a Christian cathedral.

(5) BIBLESOFT PCSTUDYBIBLE- version 4.2-b

...................................

Acknowledgment

Countless people have made contributions that have made this book possible; some contributing countless hours. History gives us only few of their names. The book has also benefited from efforts made in recent times. In particular electronic advancements greatly facilitated the effort; in particular BIBLESOFTTM software is to be noted wherein not only Bible texts were downloaded but use was made of the Greek interlinear transliterations and commentaries as well. Other helpful literary works were utilized among them the harmonization's noted in the text. Also the Greek interlinear and translations of the New Testament produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and Bible facts contained in "Insights on the Scriptures" also produced by them was frequently consulted. Finally, the "readings" by Edgar Cayce made available by the Association for Research and Enlightenment, helped in the formulation of Jesus' ministry.

~~~ ### ~~~

