Pictorial Essay: MEDIEVAL CHURCHES

OVERVIEW

This pictorial essay will be unlike my essay on castles, —- (Castle thread here) —– whereby I went into details regarding the history of castles, key features of their construction, and the pictures supplied contained narrative about that particular castle. I am neither an architect nor engineer, and I would just wind up copying and pasting a lot of stuff. However, that topic is interesting, and I’ve included a couple awesome videos at the end of the article in the “Resources” section.

Rather, this essay contains my ideas about “church”, as well as thoughts about the meaning of Jesus’ crucifixion. I write from my newfound Deist perspective, which is still in its infancy stage, and quite imperfect. Pictures of churches will serve as a backdrop. The majority of churches shown will be from the Medieval Era — for they are amongst the most glorious architectural structures ever created by mankind.

 Wells Cathedral, England, 1175 AD

PREEMPTION OF OBJECTIONS

Preemption #1: Right out of the gate, let me preempt a possible objection from the Religious Right (i.e., religious people who are always right). I KNOW A “CHURCH” IS NOT A BUILDING … technically speaking. The church is “the body of Christ” … wherever two or more are gathered in His name, you got church! OK, are ya happy now?

Preemption #2: I also know that real worship can take place anywhere and in any form. Gorgeous Gothic Cathedrals are not required. The 1895 poem ‘The Prayer of Cyrus Brown’ by Sam Foss, expresses this idea well: ——- “Lasts year I fell in Hidgekin’s well / Headfirst, said Cyrus Brown / With both my heels a -stickin’ up / And my head a-pointin’ down / And I made a prayer right then and there / The best prayer I ever said / The prayingest prayer I ever prayed / A-standin’ on my head.” OK, are ya happy now?

Preemption #3: You won’t like this article if you’re a religion-is-the-opiate-of-the-masses type person, such as this comment I found in my research; –— “Religious architecture and art were to medieval feudalism what advertising and commercialism are to modern capitalism: a rather effective way to build support for the status quo using aesthetics instead of argument. Like the fashion magazine of today, it’s a powerful way to make regular people buy into the system.” This person is not moved by beauty, cynically scoffs at majesty … and, basically, is an idiot. You might want to just look at the pictures.

Preemption #4: The overarching theme behind the pictures and commentary is one of Awe & Majesty. We’ve practically lost these feelings in our culture. Everything is “Awesome, dude!”, but nothing produces Awe. I have less than zero interest in examining the “psychology” behind this. Psychology will only attempt to reason it away. I don’t care about the chemical and electrical impulses that cause my amygdala to produce these emotions. Maslow can take his hierarchy of needs and stick them where the sun don’t shine. Freud can eat a chopped cucumber salad, and contemplate how that symbolizes the demise of the penis. To hell with all of them, I say! The “brain profession” can explain everything …. they just can’t appreciate anything.

I once walked into Canterbury Cathedral (below) in England and my jaw dropped, my heart raced, and my eyes welled up with joy. I don’t need to try to explain it … the mental autopsy would just kill the spirit.

 Canterbury Cathedral, England, 1070 AD

MEDITATION

One more thing before we get started. As you read this article you might consider playing the Gregorian Chant music video below (just one static image, so as to not distract). I think it kind of “sets the mood”; to relax the body, calm the soul, and heal the spirit.

=========================================

“God would not approve!! The money should have been given to the poor!!”, is one of the most common objections to these ornate and, yes, very expensive churches. My observation is that such objections are usually raised by non-believers. It’s a sort of attempt to belittle Christians by pointing out their supposed hypocrisy, for surely (they assume) Jesus would have condemned such lavish spending. Of course, holy-roller self-righteous Christians make the same complaint. Both groups must not be aware that some woman named Mary spent one year of wages on an expensive perfume just to wash Jesus’ dirty feet. Judas and the Pharisees made the same “give it to the poor” complaint. Jesus disagreed, saying that what Mary did was a good thing, and besides that, he said …. the poor will be with you always.

Upsala Cathedral, Sweden, 1272 AD (exterior and interior)

There were various sources of funding these churches. Kings and Bishops often contributed directly from their own funds. Many German churches were funded entirely by the emperor. Churches held annual fairs. Pilgrims donated. Trade guilds donated portions of buildings, for example, stained glass windows. The cathedral at Pisa was built entirely from the spoils of war with the Saracens. And, of course, there was the tithe – the biblical teaching which requires a person to give 10% of their income to God. The medieval church leaders also used less honorable ways to raise money; charging fees for baptisms, weddings, funerals, and Pat Boone concerts.

The most offensive money raising scheme involved the selling of indulgences (a “get out of hell” card). A particular indulgence that funded a significant portion of several churches was ….. butter. That’s right. Cooking with butter during Lent was a sin. But, folks didn’t have an alternative fat for cooking, so they cooked/baked with it anyway. The powers in charge convinced the people that they could buy their way out of God’s punishment for butter eaters. I believe you could avoid boiling in a cauldron of butter in hell for about ten cents per cookie.

I am amazed, even flabbergasted (and I rarely flabbergast) by this; that many humans spare no expense on themselves. We’ll sign on the dotted line and for the next thirty years we’ll slave away to pay off our house – one that almost certainly is too big, too ostentatious, not befitting our actual ability to pay, but meeting our desires, even greed. We have no problem buying a $50,000 car, when one half that price would more than suffice. A hundred dollar bottle of wine for dinner is no problem because, hey, we work hard for our money and deserve to pamper our bruised egos. The best clothes. The best vacations. The best schools. The best doctors. But, when it comes to building a glorious place to worship the Creator then suddenly everyone develops a severe sense of righteousness, a Mr. Scrooge on steroids. And then we applaud ourselves and marvel at our good heartedness.

Ely Cathedral, England, 1091

We go to church and share our most intimate thoughts, desires, hopes, and dreams in the presence of the Creator. We are a sensory people – pleased by beauty, bored with mediocrity, and repulsed by ugliness.   Why then can’t people create the very best atmosphere to enhance worship? Should we be deprived of giving the very best of our talents and fruit of our labor … including gold, silver, and breath-taking artistry? I would say there is a need for church to be exponentially different than any other structure we enter.

 Bern Cathedral entrance (The Final Judgment), Switzerland, 1421 AD

Not too long ago I went to NYC and saw the new One World Trade Center. I did feel a sense of awe, one achieved because of the builders’ brute force and will. It’s beautiful and an undeniably amazing achievement representing the triumph of science and technology. But, like the Dark Tower in Mordor, it’s a cold and forbidding beauty. A mostly featureless shaft of power rising so high into the sky that the people down below become a mere abstraction. How unlike the medieval cathedral … where the soul feels its worth, and the spirit experiences simultaneously the exaltation of God, as well as His distance, and where one can find their intimate and beloved place in the hierarchy of existence.

In its May 2009 issue, Christianity Today reported on a study whereby 1,600 unchurched adults were shown four pictures of church buildings, ranging from mall-like to Gothic. The vast majority preferred the most ornate church, the Gothic one. The human spirit prefers to worship in a place that feels like a church, not an office building.

 Evangel Church, Scotch Plains, NJ

 I was convinced by a friend to go to this typical modern church (above) last year to watch an inspirational movie. The setting is about as inspiring as a Corporate Office conference room, because it looks like one. It promotes a casual atmosphere …. which is somewhat appropriate as people come to church in jeans, shorts, and even sandals …. cuz, you know, God today is everyone’s “buddy”. Today’s churches are a place for social gathering; they even have coffee houses in them and people bring drinks and snacks into the sanctuary of God – because nothing beats hearing a sermon about God’s glory while munching on a jelly donut.   Except for size, this church looks no different than my home (actually, my home is better decorated), and so it promotes a sense of equality with God – “Hey, God’s house ain’t no different than mine!” But, it did give me a sense of awe, as in, “Awe! Get me the heck out of here!!”  I’m sorry for what be perceived as a judgmental attitude. I’m just an aging baby-boomer who still remembers the days of his youth when wearing “Sunday’s best” as a show of respect in entering God’s house actually meant something (not that I particularly liked itchy starched shirts and even itchier wool pants!).

Medieval Life as depicted in the 2013 German movie “Hard To Be A God”

It makes sense to imagine medieval life for the 99% to be a hard and difficult one, rather than the romanticized version we see in movies. Peasants in England lived in cruck houses. These were filthy, usually no more than two rooms, with a wooden frame covered with wattle and daub (a mixture of mud, straw and manure). All manner of bugs and rodents lived in the thatched roof and would fall on you while sleeping. There was shag carpeting …err, I mean, dirt floors. There was no sewage, people just dumped waste out windows, and more often than not, shat in the streets. There was no electricity and the wonderful luxuries that brings; refrigeration, stoves, heat, and light. No music. No entertainment. An extremely limited choice of foods; potatoes, potatoes, or potatoes – depending on where you lived. You worked yourself to the bone, often in tattered rags. There wasn’t even cleanliness in people’s daily lives as people bathed maybe once a week. Life was basically a dreary slog, except when you went to the church.

 Sint-Salvator Cathedral, Belgium, 1000AD

In church it was clean. The windows exploded in an amazing kaleidoscope of color. There was music from the organ, an experience not available anywhere else. The seats were comfortable. In church you were a child of God, just like their earthly King. Safety, sound, color, beauty … LIFE! It was as if heaven descended on earth. It was what people lived for. It gave them a glimpse of what the next life might be like, and it gave them hope in this life.

Gold, gold, gold!! Cherubim Guarding The Ark Of The Covenant

King David commissioned his son, Solomon, in 1 Chron. 22:6 to build a temple to God. (That God wanted the temple which Solomon constructed is highly questionable. Let’s leave that argument for another day. Suffice it to say that God did bless the temple as a compromise, and leave it at that.) And what a place of worship it was!! During Solomon’s reign he made “silver to be in Jerusalem as stones”. The Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents of gold … that’s over seven tons. Jerusalem was awash in gold. Now, granted, when it comes to figures and numbers, the Bible seems to vastly inflate them!

Nevertheless, if we take the Bible at its word, then the construction of the temple included 100,000 talents of gold and 1 million talents of silver! If you haven’t paused and are still reading, go back and read the previous sentence. Back in 1925, the Illinois Society of Architects set out to make estimates of the cost of rebuilding the temple. The cost of the building alone, without the vessels and other furnishings was estimated at $87 BILLION dollars …. in 1925 money. The Iraqi’s …err, Babylonians … eventually destroyed the temple. King Herod built the second temple. It wasn’t nearly as ornate. Nevertheless, construction had gone on for forty-six years by the time of Jesus’ ministry. It required ten thousand laborers according to Josephus, and used much precious material such as gold and marble … and surely cost many tens of millions of dollars (in today’s currency).

Now … there’s a point to the above two paragraphs, and it is this: not once, anywhere, even though he had ample opportunity to do so, did Jesus ever condemn either the need for such an enormously ornate structure, nor the monies needed to construct and maintain it. When asked if it was lawful to pay the temple tax he answered the question, rather than berate the temple. Did he condemn the poor widow who donated the equivalent of a penny towards the upkeep of the temple? Did he lecture what a waste of resources the temple consumed … monies that should have been given to people like this poor widow? No! In, fact, he complimented her. Don’t Christians often ask – “What would Jesus do?” It’s clear he doesn’t speak against worshiping the Almighty in an extremely fancy building, so neither should Christians. Rather than feigning faux outrage at the plight of the poor and the hypocrisy of the rich church, perhaps they should just shut up about it and donate ten percent of their income to a poor person. At least that would be more biblical.

There is a rhyme and reason to the very design of the cathedral, built to bear testimony to the presence of God. Its long nave crossed by the transept before the altar, was in the shape of a cross. The long length of the nave was a reminder of long-suffering, which endures adversity; the breadth was Christian love; and the height was a hope of future reward. The large open spaces filled with sunlight through the stained glass spoke of the glory of the life beyond. . The strong foundations and massive columns and buttresses typified the stability of God’s kingdom. Pictures and ornaments in churches are the lessons of Scripture. In essence, the church itself – the building – was a sermon of Christ, the chief cornerstone … the one which the builders rejected.

 Reims Cathedral, France, 1211 AD

Speaking of which, let’s switch gears and look at His life – the object of worship in these magnificent cathedrals. People not interested in spiritual topics, especially regarding Jesus and seeing his message in a new way can stop reading right now. Or, if you are a strictly fundamentalist type Christian, you can go straight to the comments section and do what you do best … condemn me to an eternity in hell

=========================================

There has been a movement afoot for a while, perhaps starting back in the Jesus the Hippie days in the 1960’s, to return to an “original Christianity”. Some want to return to a pre-Constantine church – before religion became an extension of the State. Some want a return to a church before Neo-Platomism – where Greek philosophy perverted the message. And some want to go all the way back to the Apostolic era, before Paul – who they believe reduced Christ’s message to a rules and dogma. It sounds nice, except for one thing — it doesn’t go back far enough.

The great German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in “Letters and papers from prison” wrote that the question one must ask today is whether or not religion is even necessary to participate in the life testified to by Jesus. He envisioned a radically new church with the power to renew and reform which the current liberal, conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, and orthodox communities could not provide – because they served an impotent God whose main function was to serve our needs, wants, and desires, which he calls “the god of religion”.

 Wells Cathedral, England, 1175 AD

I wonder why Christendom prefers a sanitized Jesus. Depictions of the crucified Jesus rarely show much blood; a few trickles from his head and palms, and even less from the gash in his side. His face rarely shows more anguish than one might expect with an abscessed tooth. He never looks horribly terrified – which I believe he was – just that saintly, sad and forlorn face, as if he’s sad for attracting morons like our own Village Idiot. I suppose when God kills God, the horror is too much for us to bear, so we clean it up, wash our hands of his blood, and make it more palpable to the senses.

Skin on the face and skull is thin, and the blood vessels are very close to the surface. Sometimes when I nick myself shaving, that tiny little cut can bleed for half an hour, or more if I remove the small piece of Scotts toilet paper protecting me. So, the crown of thorns, while not fatal, would have been painful and quite bloody. A more accurate portrayal of Jesus’ face would be one completely covered in blood, and his long flowing hair (blond, supposedly) would have been a dark tangled mess of his coagulated dried life force.

The Roman whip was called a “flagrum”. It was constructed with anywhere from 2 -12 braided leather thongs of variable lengths. At the end were small iron balls and sharp pieces of sheep bones. Some even contained a hook at the end and was given the terrifying name “scorpion.” The flagrum was designed for one purpose; to cause maximum pain by tearing flesh off the body. The Roman soldier would have made Jesus stoop which would make deeper lashes from the shoulders to the waist. Depending on the number of leather thongs, the strength of soldier, and the vigor he employed – all the skin on Jesus’ back could have been gone after just a few whippings to reveal torn flesh, and then eventually exposed muscle, and perhaps even exposed bone … resulting in massive blood loss and shock. When the flogging stopped He was already near death, and for most such prisoners the crucifixion to follow was a blessing.

The Gospel of John tells us that in this condition Jesus went out “bearing his own cross” all the way to Golgotha, the Place of a Skull. Considering that the crossbeam weighed up to 75 pounds, and was strapped to the prisoner’s back, and his hands tied to it (so that when the prisoner fell, he would literally fall on his face), and the loss of blood, and the shock, not to mentioned that he was beaten with fists even before the flogging, and deprived of food and water, and had some kind of severe medical condition that resulted in the sweating of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane … well, Jesus carrying a cross even for a short while just seems rather unlikely. Not to mention that the other three gospels state the event differently. Mark and Luke indicate Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service after Jesus first carried the cross for a short while, and Matthew indicates Simon carried the cross as soon “as they came out”. Take your pick.

 Rouen Cathedral, France, 1202 AD

Now, all this blood and gore stuff has led me to two haunting questions …. and I have never read a satisfactory answer in either case.

First, why is it OK for God to demand a human sacrifice when it is condemned in his own Book? Oh, I understand many ancient religions sacrificed to their blood-thirsty gods; lambs, goats, rams, buffalo, cows, horses, chickens, birds, and probably other animal flesh. I also understand that the Top 10 human sacrifice civilizations were; Canaanites, Aztecs, Etruscans, Celts, Romans, Minoans, Gauls, Carthaginians, Scythians, and Chimu. I also understand that Abraham was about to slit his own son’s throat, until Yahweh stopped him at the very last moment. Yet, thousands of years later Yahweh looks the other way when His Son is sacrificed … yeah, he even demands it.

I understand the complex theology that attempts to explain it. Hold on to your britches, folks, and try to follow along; — 1) all people have sinned against God 2) but, God is infinitely holy and righteous 3) so, he must punish the law-breaker, 4) if he didn’t there would be no Law, for there is no law that is a law without a punishment, 5) and the punishment for breaking the Law is separation from God 6) so, we law-breakers need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God, 7) but we law-breakers are stained by sin and can’t save ourselves, 8) which means only God can save us, 9) so Jesus came, God in the flesh, 10) but, even He, as a human, was under the Law, 11) so, that meant he had to die, 12) but, he was perfect, i.e., without sin, 12) so, his sinless life and perfect sacrifice fulfilled the requirements of the Law, — which states that only blood makes atonement for one’s life for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness 13) so, killing Jesus was an act of love on God’s behalf because we are now forgiven, 14) and all this still isn’t good enough to get you into heaven …. you have to believe it, 15) and if you don’t, you’re going straight to hell!!

Are you still with me? There is no less brutal way! God can only achieve what God wants through suffering, they say. And quite frankly, I still don’t understand this Theology of Blood.

St Stephen’s Cathedral, Austria, 1147AD

Which brings me to the second question, why is torture part of the equation? Did the temple priest first torture bulls and goats before they slit their throats? Of course, not. Would Jesus’ death have been in vain if the Romans just lopped off his head? Pointing out that Jesus’ suffering was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies only begs the question further; why does torture please God? And if it does, why make it so brief? Why not have a week-long torture fest?

One of the most common reasons given is that is shows exactly how much God hates sin, that God even allows his only begotten son to die so painfully. It’s an object lesson for stupid humans. Another popular reason is it shows exactly how much mankind hates God – man, the God-killer. Theocide. Another object lesson. Do these reasons satisfy? Do they even make sense? Why do people believe whatever reasons the imagination can supply? Perhaps it is a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable ….

Or, perhaps people are easily convinced because we want certainty. People have a deep-seated desire for an ordered universe, a universe that makes sense, a universe where we are special snowflakes and valued, a universe created by a God who is not irrational. So, God killing God becomes an act of love!

On top of it all, we want to convince ourselves that we believe for reasons other than psychological need. How many trillions of times has this prayer been uttered — “Lord, give me more faith”. A doubting Thomas is rarely admired. And, so, pulpits across the land are filled with pastors who are 100% confident about … everything, including why God had to kill God. Getting people to believe is actually fairly easy because believing and following is so natural for most humans. And pretty soon the flock in the pew believes everything the pastor believes. It wasn’t Jesus that was nailed to the cross .. it was their doubt.

Milan Cathedral, Italy, rooftop view, 1386

But, is this a statement of faith– “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  or, is it a cry of utter doubt? No, not the doubt that arises from some rational reflection upon an absence of divinity, but rather one that wells up from the trauma of personally experiencing that absence. Here, at last, is the heart of Christianity, God despairs of God.

In response, the faithful come up with a narrative that brings meaning, order, and stability to this horribly fragmented experience … the unexplainable demands a myth, or explanation. As such, the central scandalous horror of the Cross is stripped away whereby truth is domesticated by barely acknowledging Jesus’ sense of divine terror while robbing it of its trauma. The Cross becomes a means to offering ultimate security – “Jesus died for ME!!”. Rather than the Cross being a place where literally all meaning is ripped away, doubt, unknowing, and loss is eclipsed by an even greater certainty that everything is just fine.

The faithful seem to have forgotten (if the majority even knew in the first place) that the Cross signals an experience in which everything that grounds them and gives meaning collapses. A 4^th Turning event for Christendom. On the cross, Jesus is rejected by his friends, abandoned by most of his family, betrayed by religious authorities, crucified by political leaders, and despised by God. In other words, Jesus witnessed the loss of every structure which gives comfort and meaning to life. More than this, Jesus experiences a loss which grounds each of these realms …. God, himself. A populist view of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is that he lost everything for us and for God, when the truth of the matter is he lost everything … including God.

 Cathedral of Saint Basil the Blessed, Russia, 1555AD

Now might be a good time to ask; “What is modern American Christianity’s response to the Cross, where Jesus lost everything?” Sadly, it reduces the meaning of the crucifixion to giving mere intellectual ascent to a historical event. The cry at the Cross is just a minor signpost to something that happened a long time ago.   You have the Village Idiot screaming at you incessantly — “Jesus died for your sins!! Just belieeeeeve!!” – (alas, accompanied with fire and brimstone and eternity in hell in case you don’t believe their message) — in hopes that one day you will relent with an “OK, I believe”, for that is all it takes, they say, to insure your place in heaven forever. A dumbed-down religion for the masses that insures many millions can enter into eternity with no more effort than uttering a couple magic words.

Instead of trying to silence the true horror of Christ’s cry of dereliction, a true Christianity (imho) is one that embraces it and enters into it. God’s absence at the Cross does not necessarily negate his presence. If being a Christian involves participating in the crucifixion, then it ought to mean that we also undergo Christ’s earth shattering loss. Paradoxically, then, experiencing the absence of God is the fundamental way of entering into the very presence of God.

It seems to me that only when one is crushed by a deep, existential loss of certainty, that one finds oneself “in Christ”. That moment when we feel the loss of ALL that once gave us meaning – including your religion — is the very moment that we stand side by side with Christ. This is what Bonhoeffer meant by Christianity without religion. The bottom line is this; Christianity is not merely affirming or contemplating the death of Jesus on the cross …. it is to undergo that death in our own lives.

 Seville Cathedral, Spain, 1401 (largest Gothic cathedral in the world)

And that is a terrifying process!! You might walk to the altar to the tune of “Just As I Am”, but for far too many it ends there. Death to ourselves ought to involve dramatic changes. It would almost certainly involve cutting ourselves off from the system we constructed, and which constructed us. How many can do this? I tried. I failed. Give me one hundred Christians, and ninety-nine prefer to stand next to the Risen Christ at the grave, and only 1% at the Cross. Crosses demand death. Resurrections allow you to be “just as I am” forever, and without consequence.

And, as such, millions upon millions of Christians every week happily attend church – the institute that treats God as a cow on our behalf, and a place that protects us from experiencing the death at the cross. The worship songs only affirm certainty …. one must never celebrate uncertainty. Sermons lay bare all mysteries and always speak of absolute conviction about everything … doubts are a sign of spiritual weakness. Our prayers never question God or accuse Him … for cynicism is akin to blasphemy against God according to the Village Idiots. Church is where congregants can speak passionately about the “dark night of the soul” … without ever experiencing it.

Amiens Cathedral, France, 1220AD

Yet, the Holy People in my life — including immediate family members —  condemn me for not wanting any part of the religious church. They don’t understand that I have zero interest in this structure, church as a great big security blanket, which does all the thinking for me, and who condemns and isolates and cries “heretic!” at those who dare think for themselves.

Holy People and Village Idiots, when cornered, will admit that their prognostications of hate, venom, and condemnation is best left to God, and might even admit their practices fall short of their beliefs. “We’re not yet perfect in this world!”, they cry out. What a load of crap! Fact is, their practices are their beliefs, a true reflection of their soul. That’s because the outer-world is not something that needs to be brought into line with our inner-world but, rather, it is a reflection of it. If you have such people in your life, if possible, run from them as fast as you can, for they will do nothing but drag you into their own personal hell-on-earth.

 Sienna Cathedral, Italy, 1196AD

I am about to bring this story to a close. Conspicuously, I have left out the Resurrection. There’s a reason for that; because that story is about a miracle and requires faith, and this article is not about that. Up until this point, everything written about Jesus and his crucifixion did happen, or could have happened, without reliance upon the supernatural. Jesus was born, he lived for about 33 years, and then he was killed on a cross … historically verifiable, no miracles needed. The crucifixion takes place in this world, while the resurrection is other-worldly. The topic is worthy of a separate writing, however, let me close with a controversial observation.

The first mention of the resurrection occurs in Paul’s epistles … which were written before the gospels. Yet, Paul is virtually silent about the teachings and miracles ascribed to Jesus. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the five thousand, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. As far as Paul is concerned, Jesus wasn’t a teacher. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul is concerned, Jesus performed no miracles at all. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Really, it’s as if Paul didn’t know Jesus at all.

 (Gothic elegance) Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Italy, 1296 AD

On the other hand, Paul did have access to the disciples who knew Jesus firsthand. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that Paul did know at least some of the things above. Which makes the situation even worse because it is then crystal clear that all these aspects of Jesus’ life were of no interest to Paul. Paul’s interest in Jesus can be summed up in this passage from 1 Corinthians 15 — “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures …” …. the theology of Paul in one sentence.

For Paul, adherence to a set of Jesus’ teachings and belief in his miracles meant absolutely nothing. Paul’s “Jesus formula” can be reduced to three steps; 1) Crucifixion, 2) Resurrection, and 3) Conversion. Nothing else mattered. Of course, this was a radical departure from the Jewish faith — of which “Christianity” was still a sect before Paul’s arrival. It is in that sense that Paul , not Jesus, founded a new religion.

Naturally, Paul added some “muscle” to his new message in terms of threats and condemnations … a conversion technque followed by Village Idiots forever after. Paul said that those who do not believe in the resurrection are pitiful, and that their faith is in vain. I think he’s full of **it. Let me use this ancient Buddhist parable to explain why.

 Santa María del Mar, Spain, 1329AD

A story: There was once a young mother whose only child died in infancy. The woman was so distraught that she wrapped the infant’s body in cloth and searched for someone who would able to resuscitate him. She traveled throughout the land to see doctors, magicians, and priests, but none could help her. One day she heard of a Holy Man who lived high up in the mountains and who possessed great powers. Upon finding him she related her story through many tears. When she had finished the Holy Man thought for a moment, and then said to her with great compassion; “I can help you. But, in order for me to offer the appropriate prayer, you must bring to me a handful of mustard seeds from the home of someone who has not suffered the pain of loss.” Delighted, the young mother left immediately and traveled throughout the land in search of a home that had not been overshadowed with pain. She searched for a year, but could not find a single such home. Instead, she heard many stories of others suffering great loss. Slowly she came to terms with her own suffering, until one day she was able to give her beloved son a proper burial.

This woman suffered so much that she seeks to avoid reality by any means necessary. Meanwhile, the Holy Man realized the child is dead and nothing will bring him back. It is interesting to note what the Holy Man does not do. He does not say to her that nothing can be done, and then send her on her way. He does not offer empty platitudes about the tragedy of life. But, best of all he does not use the opportunity to introduce the crutch of religion – “Your son is in a better place!”.

What he does realize is that this woman needs to face her pain, and work through it. His advice is meant to bring the woman into contact with others who have also suffered, who are able to understand her pain through a shared experience, and connect with her on a human level. The woman wanted instant relief. What she needed, the Holy Man knew, was human contact with those who could connect with her dark night of the soul in all its horror and distress. She didn’t need a system of explanations, a magic formula, talk of heaven, or even a miracle. She needed deep, honest, and compassionate human interaction. Like Jesus on the cross, to be truly set free she didn’t need to escape suffering, she needed to embrace it.

In my life, if possible, I want to be that Holy Man for those who cross my path, offering true wisdom. In my life, if possible, I want to be a part of that holy community who can offer comfort when needed, because I have been comforted. In that way, historical event or not, I live the resurrection of Christ. And that’s enough for me.

Peace to all of you … especially to those whom I’ve offended with this article, including Village Idiots on internet forums throughout the land.

===========================================

RESOURCES — VISUAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Lq1UXNjA3gQ

RESOURCES — BOOKS and TEXT

Book: “The Cube And The Cathedral” –— A short book that examines, among other things, the connection between spirituality and architecture. The author foresees the end of Western civilization if the cube (below) triumphs over the cathedral.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092667?tag=beliefnetauto-20

Book: “Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe” —  http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Unbelief-Medieval-Europe-Arnold/dp/0340807865

Text: “The 8^th Wonder Of The Ancient World: Solomon’s Temple” — http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/SOLOMON.pdf

SACRED GEOMETRY: The strands of our DNA, the cornea of our eye, snow flakes, pine cones, flower petals, diamond crystals, the branching of trees, a nautilus shell, the star we spin around, the galaxy we spiral within, the air we breathe, and all life forms as we know them emerge out of timeless geometric codes. Sacred geometry is the belief that God created the universe according to a geometric plan. It is also the geometry used in the design and construction of many religious structures; churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles, sacred groves, village greens and in the creation of religious art. It is a fascinating topic to study, especially for the math oriented folks.

Sacred Geometry Website: http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/the-meaning-of-sacred-geometry

Sacred Geometry Video: “Sacred Geometry Taught In A Donald Duck Cartoon”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVTPwPh7ioU

Author: Stucky

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it. View all posts by Stucky