An Atheist's Approach to Lent
Easter is a good time to celebrate the end of winter and beginning of Spring. An atheist pastor has suggestions on how a church, which may be approximately deist in belief or even agnostic, can reject to myths surrounding events leading up to the Crucifixion and Resurrection and focus on the marvels of the natural world.
Right from the git-go Easter challenges the skeptic. This thing about Jesus dying for our sins is trying to swim against the current. If Jesus died as reported, he died because he broke laws. It is hard to run through the Easter rituals when this big inconsistency is repeated over and over.
Another reason for not enjoying the Easter rituals is that historical accounts tell us bodies of criminals, especially political opponents, were not taken down and given to the enemies' friends. They were left hanging there. How else were people learn what happens when one challenges Roman authorities? From this the best conclusion is there was no tomb or cave--that was introduced so no one claims to have seen the come-back-to-life bit of the story.
One of the first things to note is that the word "lent" comes from an old English word for lengthen. The days lengthen when the lent season comes around.
It is good to consider the Easter season as a psychological victory over the short cold days of winter. In that sense, nature resides within our minds as well as in the environment around us. If we skip over the gloomy Good Friday and concentrate on a sunny Sunday everything is better.
While I won't be going to a church this Easter, I will be celebrating it as a day in Springtime.
re. "if Jesus died as reported, he died because he broke laws". Matt. 18; 27: 22-23-24;
ReplyDelete18. For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him up.
22. And he (pilot) said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ". They all said, "Let him be crucified".
23. And he said, "Why, what evil has he done? But they kept shouting all the more, saying "Let Him be crucified!"
And when Pilot saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude, saying; "I AM INNOCENT OF THIS MAN'S BLOOD; see to that yourselves.
What laws?
John 19:4 And Pilate came out again and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you know that I find no guilt in Him".
ReplyDeletevs 6. When therefor, the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying ;Crucify, crucify! Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him."
vs, 12. As the result of this, Pilate made efforts to release Him.
What law?
If Jesus had not broken Roman law, as Pilate said, Pilate would have had no need to keep Jesus on the cross as an example. When he was asked to take the body down after proven dead, Pilate most likely would have been agreeable to remove the body, and be done with the whole affair.
ReplyDeletehelper "as Pilate said, Pilate would have...Pilate ..would have been agreeable to remove the body..."
DeleteMy preference is Bart Ehrman's take on the story. He believes there was a Jesus and that person was killed by the government. He has read a lot of other material about the period and has concluded there is no way Pilate would have spent time at the site nor had such conversations. He was thought of as an efficient hard headed get it done guy and would have expected criminals, he could decide who was a criminal, to be rounded up and executed. The story of Pilate being so nice was inserted to stay on good terms with the Romans.
Jon; Ehrman's and your take is as much speculation as is my "would have, ". However, whatever Jesus was accused of still didn't break any civil law. Pilate was spooked when he was told ; "If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar". I have no doubt Pilate was pretty tough, but he more than anyone would not want to have Caesar dis satisfied with his performance with a supposed interloper of power and authority, such as a "King". Pilate for sure would have wanted the whole affair go away. In that some wanted to take the body down before the sabbath helped him move on with no reminders of the whole event.
DeleteMy "preference" is a valid as Bert's or yours, if not more so.
The story actually reveals Pilate the politician as intimidated by a proposed bad report to Rome. Not uncommon, and easily expected of politicians then and now.
There is no biblical report of Pilate being at the site. I am sure Bert has read a lot of material. Whether Pilate " nor had such conversations" is speculative,
I don't see Pilate as "being so nice". He was a lilly livered chicken when intimidated by the threat of a bad report to Rome. They had him by his giganticus gonadici. and he ("being the hard headed get it done kind of guy") needed to remove the threat, even though no Roman law was broken.
Helper "Ehrman's and your take is as much speculation as is my 'would have.'"
DeleteI agree we are all speculating on what happened, and we can even speculate as to whether any of the story actually happened. The entire story would be better told if all preachers, and those who comment here, would admit, "there have never been story tellers who were present when these events were supposed to have happened." I admit I am always attracted toward interpretations that enforce the unlikelihood the entire event ever happened.
It seems so logical to me that if I were the writers of this tale I would first want to save my own a$$. I could do this by portraying Pilate as a not-to-bad guy and not be hung up myself by the Romans. I could save my a$$ further by making up a story that it was the Jews who were really the villains, not the Roman leader. A believer would not critique the story in this was but, instead, simply accept the story as historically correct.
As to my use of the word "law", I was using it to depict the rules set down by Pilate, not as rules set down by any group such as the Jews. Raising a ruckus in the temple (if that actually happened) would have angered the local Roman administrator. No doubt his directives from Rome were to, first, collect taxes, and, second, to maintain order. Dumping tables of people conducting legitimate business in the Temple was the opposite of order. That is why I considered what is told of Jesus in the story to be breaking the law. You are welcome to disagree with my use of the word in that way but I think the tale tells of Jesus in trouble with the authorities who set the laws.
re. "As to my use of the word "law', I was using it to depict the rules set down by Pilate, not as rules set down by any group such as the Jews." ..."ruckus in the temple, angered local Roman administrator...maintain order..dumping tables..opposite of order". I am sure Pilate had some flexibility as to which, yet, there is no evidence he chose to prosecute Him for that.
DeleteYou are free to create your own story to fit your agenda, as you accuse others.
Someone like me trying to unpack the controversy surrounding the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of a renegade rabbi millennia ago is a bridge too far. I respect but do not wish to emulate those that spend a lifetime of study sorting out 2000+ years of the if, ands, and buts surrounding these mystical events. For me a good Friday was a day off and Easter Sunday was cheerful children loaded up on chocolate bunnies, searching for more, and a fine meal cooked by my lovely wife. The Spring Equinox means the resurrection of the cold gloomy dead of winter once again into the warm sunshine and living color of Spring. A mystical rebirth and mood elevating event in its own right. (Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 10:49 pm CDT)
ReplyDelete