Sunday, 20 May 2012
  • Home
  • About
  • Blogroll
  • Contact
  • Store

Connect


Recommended Reading

  • Home
  • Categories
  • Tags
  • Search
  • Archives
Viewing entries tagged History Subscribe to feed
Donald E. Hester

Was Jesus a Historical Person?

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 26 April 2012
Apologetics 0 Comments

Was Jesus a Historical Person?
An open letter to Stephen Van Eck

Introduction

Sail Ship

There is a myth about a man named Francis Hester, who in 1650, supposedly took a trip from Southwart, England and landed in New Kent County, Virginia. The problem with this man is we really have no reliable historical evidence for his existence. Also, there are so many similar stories from that time period that one might conclude that his life is a complete fabrication. At most there are only two pieces of evidence for his existence. One is a religious document, a baptismal record, and the other a ship’s manifest listing him as a passenger. Since the baptismal record is a religious document, as good naturalists, we must reject it out of hand. As for the ship’s manifest, upon careful examination, the name on the manifest is Francis Hestor, not Francis Hester. Obviously this is a completely different person and not a misspelling or misreading of the original document. Without evidence, we must conclude that this man is a myth, even if he is my 16th great-grandfather. Similarly, some skeptics, such as yourself,[1] argue that Jesus did not exist because there is a lack of secular evidence. In this paper I will demonstrate that there is solid extrabiblical evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

Non-Christian Evidence for the Person of Jesus

On CNN TV’s Larry King Live, Ellen Johnson, president of the American Atheists, limits permissible evidence to “secular” evidence. Further, she makes the grandiose claim that there are no such sources of evidence: “Well, I'm here to give the reality point of view, I guess. Because the reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion… There is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.”[2] This statement might excite the Atheist with exuberance, but it is completely fallacious. According to one scholar, there are over 20 ancient (from first to mid-second century) non-Christian witnesses to the public life of Jesus.[3] Limiting the debate to only non-Christian records does not strengthen the claim that Jesus was a myth. In this section we will examine three of the abundant secular evidences. In the next section we will address issues regarding this approach to historical research.

We will discuss three historians from the corresponding periods: Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 120 AD), Flavius Josephus (37 – 97 AD), and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (69/75 – 130 AD). It is first worth noting a few common observations of these men before addressing them individually. They were educated, professional historians, and they all worked for the government. For example, Suetonius was the chief secretary for Emperor Hadrian and had access to the imperial records.[4] Josephus was educated in Rome and his benefactor was Titus.[5] Finally, Tacitus is considered to be the greatest historian of ancient Rome.[6] None of these men show any indication of bias toward Christianity. In fact, it is safe to say any bias would have likely been against Christians because they were writing during the time when Christians where being persecuted.[7] In addition, each account was written within 100 years of the life of Jesus.

First, Tacitus relates a story of the burning of Rome by Nero. In his account he explains that Nero places blame on the Christians for the burning of Rome. In that report he adds details about Christus, the founder, who was from Judaea and was crucified, “the extreme penalty,” by Pontius Pilatus:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular…[8]

This quote may seem like it does not provide us much information about the life of Christ. Certainly this is true; there is not much said here. One would not expect a Roman historian to elaborate on the life of a peasant who was executed. However, Cambridge lecturer Markus Bockmuehl states the importance of this quotation: “That might not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are still sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty.”[9]

You can raise the objection that Tacitus did not write this section, that it was a later addition of Christians. However, simply raising an objection is not sufficient grounds to discount the authenticity of the quotation. What evidence is there of tampering? None. Even the highly skeptical non-Christian New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman commenting on this issue states, “But surely the best way to deal with evidence is not simply to dismiss it when it happens to be inconvenient.”[10]

DEH_3335

Suetonius’ comments provide fewer details of Jesus’ life than Tacitus, yet they are revealing. First, his accounts demonstrate Christians were in Rome and expelled in 49 AD during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.”[11] This is within 16 years of the death of Christ, and far too short a time span for a mythical person to develop. Some scholars may take issue with Suetonius’ spelling of Christ casting doubt on who Suetonius was writing about. However, spelling mistakes of this kind are common.[12] In addition, there is an interesting corroboration in Acts 18:2. “And he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” The most likely explanation of these references seems to reference Christians in Rome by 49 AD.

Another account by Suetonius demonstrates that Christians were punished by Nero. “He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition.”[13] Suetonius corroborates Tacitus’ accounts of Christian persecution although Tacitus gives us far more information on Nero’s punishments and executions for the alleged fire on July 18, 64 AD [14]. Suetonius gives us very little details, but what he does give us are extremely early references to Christians. His latest reference is within 30 years of the death of Jesus Christ which is still far too short a time for a myth to have developed.

Of the three historians, Josephus’ comments give us the most detailed information about Jesus Christ. Josephus, a Jewish historian for the imperial family, wrote four different works detailing Jewish history from Genesis to his lifetime. In these works, Josephus mentions many people who are also discussed in the gospels, including James, the brother of Jesus, Annas, Caiaphas, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, Felix and Festus.[15] Of Jesus he writes:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. He gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.[16]

He [Ananus] convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus – the one called “Christ”- whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging him to order Ananus to take such actions no longer.[17]

In these quotations Josephus confirms that Jesus was called Christ and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus and Josephus are in agreement that Jesus Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Skeptics once claimed that there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate ever existed. However, in 1961, archaeologists led by Dr. Frova discovered a limestone block with Pontius Pilate’s name inscribed on it. "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."[18] This archaeological evidence further corroborates the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus.

Critics often raise the issue that the quotations of Josephus were either added or tampered with by later Christians. However, a majority of scholars agree that the majority of the text is genuine.[19] In fact, the quote from Josephus above was taken to be the most likely rendition by the skeptic Bart Ehrman.

Scholars have also examined an Arabic translation of Josephus, found by Shlomo Pines,[20] that further corroborates that the majority of the text is genuine. You can see from this version of Josephus there appears to be no interpolation of the text that seems to be in the versions in the West.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.[21]

James Charlesworth sums it up like this, “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” providing “corroboration of the gospel account.”[22]

Ellen Johnson’s position that there is no “secular” evidence for Jesus is patently false. We have seen a number of secular sources for Jesus’ life. In particular, we have three accounts of historians who wrote within 100 years of the life of Jesus. Further, Josephus was born within a decade of Jesus. I grant that these are not primary sources of Jesus life. There are no secular primary sources of his life. This is true about 99.99% of people alive at the time.[23] However, these secular secondary accounts do corroborate the primary eyewitness accounts of the gospels.

In conclusion, using early non-Christian sources, I have shown that there is solid historical evidence to prove that Jesus was an historical figure. Furthermore, the sources cited were historians who were writing within 100 years of Jesus Christ. Also, aspects of their testimony have been corroborated by recent archaeological finds. Finally, the majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman, agree that Jesus Christ was a historical person.

Interpreting Evidence

Mr. Van Eck, in your article you claim there is a lack of historical evidence. However, the gospels are historical documents and date closer to the events in question than any other records of Jesus. I assume that what you mean by the lack of historical evidence is closer to Ellen Johnson’s or Jim Walker’s comments. Johnson carefully limits the debate to secular evidence,[24] while Walker cleverly dismisses any secondary sources as hearsay. However, historians do not limit evidence to just secular or eyewitness accounts.

One of the problems with historical research is that we have no direct evidence to anything historical,[25] nor can we conduct experiments. Bart Ehrman put the problem in perspective: “This makes historical evidence different from the kinds of evidence used in the hard sciences.”[26] Historians like to have primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, whenever possible. Even with primary sources, historians gather as many sources as possible, weigh each individually and develop theories based on all of the available evidence, giving preference to primary, then secondary, sources, all the while taking into account any known biases of the sources.[27]

Walker wishes us to limit our knowledge to direct evidence such as eyewitness accounts. However, he does not allow for the gospels. This is not a practice used by historians as they piece together the past. Historians rely upon all the available evidence, including secondary sources. Each piece of evidence is weighed based upon its proximity to the actual events. Greater weight is given to primary sources, taking any extraneous circumstances such as bias into account. Less weight is given to secondary sources, and even less the further the author is from the events.

Setting a standard of interpretation for historical events based upon this hyper-skeptical criticism is unwarranted. It sets the bar so high that it cannot be attained. We cannot prove anything happened in history given this high standard. Academic scholars understand the unique science of putting the past into perspective by using all available evidence. There is no reason for requiring evidence for Jesus to meet a higher standard than we do to any other historical figure. To do so is revealingly disingenuous. It does not portray intellectual rigor; rather, it sacrifices intellectual integrity for a naïve approach to history.

Conclusion

DEH_3092

“But for us the conclusion is inescapable. Jesus never existed.”[28] This is a bold claim, indeed, but it is not supported by the recommended reading you cite. You recommend Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms to help support your bold assertion. However, his thesis is that Jesus is an historical figure. Helms writes, “my thesis – [is the gospels] are largely fictional accounts concerning an historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth…”[29] Your argument that Jesus never existed because there is no historical evidence is betrayed by the very sources you cite.

Gary Habermas states, “The Claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history,”[30] and according to Clay Jones “…the notion that Jesus never existed is preached only by the loony fringe.”[31] Even the highly skeptical Bart Erhman agrees the evidence shows that Jesus was a real person. And finally, atheist historian Michael Grant sums it up nicely, “…modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”[32]

Endnotes

  1. This paper is an open letter to Stephen Van Eck and his position in: Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
  2. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
  3. Gary R. Habermas. “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
  4. Robert Graves, “Introduction” to Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars, transl. by Robert Graves (Baltimore. Penguin, 1957) 7 as quoted in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. (Joplin, MO, College Press, 1999) 190.
  5. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 158.
  6. Tacitus, Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579997/Tacitus (accessed March 22, 2012).
  7. “Persecution in the Early Church” ReligionFacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm (accessed March 22, 2012).
  8. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html (accessed March 26, 2012).
  9. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. (Edinburgh. T & T Clark Ltd. 1994) 10-11 as quoted in Josh McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Nashville. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1999) 121.
  10. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 55.
  11. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 05: Claudius. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Locations 292-293.
  12. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 52.
  13. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 06: Nero. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Location 151.
  14. "The Burning of Rome, 64 AD," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1999). http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).
  15. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 159.
  16. Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3. Quoted by Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 61.
  17. Josephus, Antiquities 20.200-201 as quoted by Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 161.
  18. Pontius Pilate Inscription. Great Archaeology. http://www.greatarchaeology.com/Pontius.php (accessed March 28, 2012).
  19. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 193.
  20. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
  21. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
  22. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries. (SPCK Publishing, 1989) 96-97 as quoted by Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 195.
  23. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 43.
  24. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
  25. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
  26. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 37.
  27. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
  28. Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
  29. Randel McCraw Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 1988) 10.
  30. Habermas, Gary R., “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
  31. Clay Jones. Jesus Wasn’t a Real Person? That’s Dumb! Clay Jones’ Blog (August 24, 2010). http://www.clayjones.net/2010/08/jesus-wasnt-a-real-person-thats-dumb/ (accessed March 20, 2012).
  32. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004) 200 as quoted by Born Identity: Was Jesus a real person?. Y-Jesus.com. http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php (accessed March 2012).
Tags: History, Mythology, Jesus Christ, Roman
Hits: 128 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Was Jefferson a Christian, Atheist, or Deist?

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Religion 0 Comments

DEH_0047

 

Was Jefferson a Christian, Atheist, or Deist?

Email from a student:

Sorry to bother you with yet another article, but I have come across several over the last few days that I think are germane to things that have been discussed in your Tuesday night class.

I take everything with a grain of salt these days and am admittedly not a Glenn Beck groupie. However, I do believe that much of his information regarding the Founding Fathers has been fairly accurate.

But to cut to the chase ... I have heard for years the story about Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible to accommodate his own beliefs and I heard you again mention it in class the other night.

The following article seems to shed new light (at least for me) on that story:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-the-real-story-behind-the-jefferson-bible-david-barton-shared-it-with-beck/

I'd like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,

My return email:

For a period of time, Thomas Jefferson was known as a Deist. Not because he had affiliation with any Deist organization, but because his Theology was Deist. Deism is, in reality, a catch-all for many beliefs of God. Recently, Atheists have claimed that Jefferson was an Atheist. This theory is making-the-rounds online. I just debated with an Atheist on Facebook about this. Finally, some Christians claim Jefferson was a protestant Christian. What we do know for sure is that Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian/Anglican. Later in life, he wrote that he would like to join a Unitarian church, but he could not because there were none in Virginia at the time.

I think it is import to make a distinction between attendance or membership in an organization and what a person actually holds or believes. People can often claim to be one thing while holding a different worldview or theology. Certainly, we would not put it past a politician to “be all things to all men.”

David Burton has recently claimed that he is a Christian in an attempt to bolster or recover the view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. His comments, however, have sparked some sharp criticism. I think it would be a good idea to look up David Barton. Check out the controversy over his misquotations to see it the criticism is legit.

You can find references to most of it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
Look under Criticism and Unconfirmed Quotations.

The question is whether or not the criticism of Burton is correct and if it is material to his assertions.

So what do we think were Jefferson’s actual beliefs? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Sounds Christian, for sure. To take a lesson from Greg Koukl, I would ask, what did Jefferson mean by Jesus? That is, who would Jefferson say He is?

Here are some quotes from Jefferson that might shed some light on this:

About Science and Religion
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

About the Gospels
We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

About the God of the Old Testament
That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

It would appear that Jefferson thought Science trumps religion, that the gospel accounts were lies and the god of the Old Testament we cruel and capricious.

In addition, I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible and in the forward there are comments about Jefferson’s dislike of the supernatural references.

With comments like this, one would think he is in the New Atheist crowd other than the fact he did believe in a god. We just aren’t certain which version of god (theology) that would be. But who can really know the heart of a man? I think it is safe to say he was a Deist or Unitarian. To say he was a Bible believing Christian or an atheist, while certainly possible, I don’t think it is probable.

Either way, what does his worldview have to do with anything today?

As for Burton, I don’t know if the criticism is sound or not, or whether it was intentional or unintentional. If he has misrepresented the facts, then he has done a great disservice to the Christian community (Body of Christ). Even if our intentions are noble, we should never misrepresent or bare false witness to anyone.

Tags: American, History, United States, Religion, Founding Fathers, President
Hits: 100 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Monday, 13 February 2012
Book Reviews 0 Comments

Around Seattle

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu

“Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible,” by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, caught my eye after I had seen some interesting websites that made a connection between the Genesis flood account and Chines pictographic characters (logograms).

Thesis
The thesis of the book is, “we will show that there is sufficient light peeking through the windows of general revelation in Chinese history, records, literature, and practices to convince one to take the next step, into the sunlight of God’s special revelation.”(40)

What this book is not saying
This book is not making the claim that there is more than one way to God. The claim is that the ancient Chinese had a rudimentary knowledge of the one true God that would have come from the revelation up to the point of their migration to the steps of China.

Chapter 1
The book starts with an explanation of the differences between myths, legends, and history. The book transitions into an explanation of general and special revelation of God. These become key points and a foundation for moving forward with their thesis. The book then promises to review the “signposts” that point to their thesis.

Chapter 2
Chapter two gives us a brief overview of the pictographic and ideographic nature of the Chinese written language. Further, the authors show how some of these characters correlate to the Genesis record and the basic tenants of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. The authors rightfully acknowledge that this can be dismissed as circumstantial evidence, however, “these characters should, however, compel us to seek further evidence within the Chinese culture to see if, in fact, the ancient Chinese worshipped the One True God.”(71)

Chapter 3
Chapter three addresses the name and concept of God for the ancient Chinese. The name given to God in Chinese is 皇天上帝 (Huang Tian Shang Di) which translates to Supreme Lord of the Great Heaven. Often, He is referred to only as 上帝 (Shang Di). For the ancient Chinese, this is the Creator God who is above and distinct from all other lesser gods (shen or spirits). The chapter continues with parallels between Shang Di and the Creator God of the Hebrews and Christians.

“We saw an abundance of references that strikingly show how the attributes of Shang Di (Tian) match those of the One True God of the Bible, leading us to the conclusion that Shang Di (Tian) is the general revelation to the Chinese people of the same God worshipped by the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament.”(105) The author finally laments “It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Chinese have not worshipped this God alone; they have also worshipped a multitude of other beings. …many Chinese around the world have fallen under the power of a host of fearful superstitions and syncretistic religious beliefs.”(105)

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 compares the Great Border Sacrifice at the Temple of Heaven (which should actually be translated “Alter of Heaven”) with the Old Testament sacrifices to God. They conclude this chapter with this thought, “I found striking similarities in the ceremonies associated with sacrifices performed by the ancient Chinese and the ancient Hebrews. These very discoveries, though, raised further questions. Where did the concepts of substitutionary death – that is, an innocent dying for the guilty –and of atoning death – the requirement of death to pay for sin – originate?”(151)

Chapter 5
Chapter five covers the next “signpost” which is the blood covenant. The chapter explores the parallels in the covenants in the Bible and the rituals performed by the ancient Chinese. They conclude “The parallels between China’s practice of covenants and God’s perfect revelation of covenants in the Holy Scriptures are vivid and eloquent. God uses these dramatic ceremonies to teach eternal principles that were finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”(179)

Chapter 6
In chapter six, the authors explore the actions and discoveries of some of the first missionaries to China. In particular, they explore the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1550-1610) and his missional approach. Ricci’s approach was to demonstrate respect for the Chinese people and culture by such things as learning the native language. This was not common-place for most missionaries of the time. Ricci’s approach was not to convert the Chinese to a Western Culture Christianity but to a Chinese Christianity. (I have a past post on Christianity and the fact that it is culturally agnostic to a point). Ricci’s work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is in part, a basis for this book.

“Therefore, having leafed through a great number of ancient books, it is quite clear to me that the Sovereign on High and the Lord of Heaven are different only in name.” “He who is called Lord of Heaven in my humble country is He who is called Shang-Di in Chinese.” - Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Others such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), and James Legge (1815-1897) built on the goodwill built by Ricci. Particular for Legge, the key to understanding Chinese thought was by reading the classic works.

“I maintain that the Chinese do know the true God, and have a word in their language answering to our word God, to the Hebrew Elohim, and the Greek Theos.” - James Legge

Chapter 7
In this chapter the authors explore how the ancient Chinese understanding of God played a role in politics. In fact, I think this was one of my favorite chapters. The ancient Chinese had a concept they called the Mandate of Heaven 天命 (Tian Ming). This concept was that the ruler was given power by God to rule. This, however, did not mean that the emperor was free to do whatever he wanted. The concept included Tian Xia Wei Gong (Righteousness Rules), which meant that he was to be a righteous and virtuous ruler. If the emperor was not righteous in his rule, he was seen as having lost the Mandate of Heaven. This form of meritocracy is quite appealing to me. The person who was to be the next ruler was based upon that person’s merit, 禪讓 (Shan Rang), not their genealogy, wealth, or even popularity. The concept of 禪讓 (Shan Rang) is that the emperor was above all else, a servant, albeit the servant-leader.(241)

I have to admit, my biased libertarian bent, leads me to an affinity for the Mandate of Heaven.

Chapter 8
In this chapter, aptly entitled ‘Enter the Dragon,’ the authors show how the original worship of Shang Di was corrupted by the dragon cults. As you might bet, they show there are many parallels between the dragon in the Bible and those of ancient China. Much of China’s original heritage has been lost to the dragon and today, you see the principle of the dragon prominent in Chinese culture, government, and business. “Power, pleasure, and position are very enticing. But, they do not last. Like the dragon, they do not serve us; we end up serving them when we pursue them.”(291)

Chapter 9
The book finishes with a discussion of the parallel in the concepts of truth and some astronomy. The author relates a story of a doctoral student who made the statement, “The Chinese Shang Di cannot be the same as the God of the Bible because the latter is a Western deity.” The author, then, offers an illustration of two cups. If he made the claim that both cups are made up of the same material and you objected, how would you resolve the difference? The answer is, you break-down the composition of both cups and, if they prove to be similar or identical, then the two cups are the same. This is to say that you perform careful observation, critically examine the facts, and arrive at a logical conclusion.

“That is what we have sought to do in this chapter and indeed throughout this book. We have presented facts from China’s ancient historical records, records that secular scholars and experts agree are reliable and true, and we have arrived at our conclusions, which we have presented in this book. These facts are now before you, for you to draw your own conclusions.”(321)

My thoughts
I think this book is a primer for any apologetic, evangelistic or missionary work to people in the Chinese culture. The book is especially useful for contextualizing your message. I have to admit that I have a deeper appreciation for the richness of Chinese culture. I have to admit I find Chinese culture fascinating and I want to learn more about their culture.

Further, I find it absolutely fascinating how God works and leaves his fingerprints everywhere around the world. I think God is much like an artist; He loves the different cultures and expressions. It is amazing that, in each of the cultures around the world, God has “set them up” for the truth.

Other books have been written on this subject, however, this is the best treatment of the subject that I have found.

Tags: China, Missions, Evangelism, Apologetics, Sociology, Culture, Book, Review, Politics, Religion, History
Hits: 175 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Breaking News: Ark of the Covenant

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 25 June 2009
Religion 0 Comments

alt

Apparently, today the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, Abuna Pauolos, will have an announcement concerning the Ark of the Covenant. Legend has that the Ark was moved there for safe keeping long ago. The story is over 1500 years old so that does lend some credibility to the story, if for nothing else its longevity. 
 
A great mystery will be solved today; either it is the real Ark of the Covenant, a copy or nothing at all. The real question I concern myself with is what does this mean for Christians? I know it will have tremendous meaning for Jews.
 
Many Christians contend that God does not have His presence above the Mercy Seat (lid of the Ark) anymore. As Christians we can boldly walk to the throne of grace, Jesus is our High Priest. From this point of view, it is a relic, once used by God.
 
For some they believe that Christ will return to rule over Israel. A new temple will bill built and the Ark placed back in the new temple. A new dawn of civilization; sounds like good news if that is a correct understanding.
 
What if it is true and it is brought to Jerusalem and placed in the Temple of the Rock? Would that bring peace? If it did, is that bad news for us?
 
I can speculate all day. I guess it is best to watch and see how this unfolds. Here are some links to sites that have reported the news.
 
My past blog post on the Ark: 
http://unvarnishedblog.com/home/5-christianity/71-my-thoughts-on-the-ark-of-the-covenant

http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/news/index.php?topic=9987.0

http://cosmicx.blogspot.com/2009/06/ethiopian-church-leader-to-announce.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132067

 

Tags: Church History, History, Archaeology
Hits: 2355 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Software Evolution of Man

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Science 0 Comments

I was watching Digging for the Truth: Neanderthal! Episode 48.  Here are a few notes I took during the program.  The program was about the end of Neanderthal.

 
Neanderthal
  • (1% of the genome mapped)
  • Used tools
  • Larger brain (not smarter)
  • Humans did not descend from them
  • Used fire
 
Cro-Magnon
  • Used tools
  • Cave painting
  • Jewelry and beads
  • Smaller brain (smarter)
  • Humans descended from them
  • Used fire
 
Common words used in the program, 'Probably', 'Might have', 'Possibly' or they would use absolute terms with pure speculation. Let's be honest there is no proof that the last Neanderthal died in a cave near Gibraltar. Yet a scientist on the show made that claim. I would accept a statement more along the lines of the following, ' Based upon available evidence it is possible or higher probability that the last Neanderthals may have died off near Gibraltar.'
 
One statement is intellectually honest the other is disingenuous at best. So are the statements artistic license? Is science now art? Open to individual interpretation and imagination?
 
There are other questions I have on evolution. Not to say it is wrong, I just questions. Let’s look at people as hardware and software. Hardware is our bodies and our soul or thoughts are our software. Now evolution is an explanation for the hardware but it has yet to explain our software? Think of this. How did our imagination evolve? How did love evolve? How did our inquisitive spirit evolve? We know that we define ourselves by our imagination, love and inquisitiveness. Have you ever seen a monkey make tools? How about math? Do monkeys sit around and wonder why the sun is in the sky and in 24 hours it is back where it was (almost). Do monkeys wonder about the meaning of life?
 
No primates use tools, or fire, paint or make jewelry. How did that evolve? Evolving from a primate to homo sapiens for the hardware seems simple enough. But, where and how did our soul or intellect evolve?
 
I find this passage in the Bible especially telling:
"Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:7 HCSB
 
Strong's Hebrew 5397 נְשָׁמָה [nâshamah /nesh·aw·maw/] n f. From 5395; TWOT 1433a; GK 5972; 24 occurrences; AV translates as “breath” 17 times, “blast” three times, “spirit” twice, “inspiration” once, and “souls” once. 1 breath, spirit. 1a breath (of God). 1b breath (of man). 1c every breathing thing. 1d spirit (of man).
 
Taken from this passage is an ancient Kabbala tradition about how to make a golem.    You have to form the body out of the clay and then insert a piece of paper with Hebrew word on it into the bodies mouth and then it will come alive. When I heard that I thought it sounded like putting an artificial intelligence program into a robot. You have the body which is easy enough to make. The hard part is the programming.
 
For evolution we have no answer on how our software evolved. For artificial intelligence we still can't program it for robots.
 
Just something to think about.
 
Tags: Paleontology, History, Evolution
Hits: 540 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Movie Review: The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Friday, 10 April 2009
Movie Reviews 0 Comments

This movies starts off with a very happy beginning. Back dropped in the heydays of the 1940 as seen by children. "Set during World War II, a story seen through the innocent eyes of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the commandant at a concentration camp, whose forbidden friendship with a Jewish boy on the other side of the camp fence has startling and unexpected consequences." Pasted from <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/> 

The parents tried to keep the fact that it was a concentration camp from the young boy. To me that should be an indication to the parents that what they are involved in is wrong. The children's tutor starts to indoctrinate them. When the mother asks the father about what the tutor is teaching, he says it was what all children were being taught and needed. Very dangerous to let the state determine what your children should be taught.
 
What a heavy burden for an 8 year old boy! He gets a firsthand look at the ethical issues and the hypocrisy of the Nazis. 
 
The boy meets a little Jewish boy, his age, on the other side of the fence. Toward the end he breaks in to help the Jewish boy find his father, who presumably was sent to the furnace. He gets stuck in the prison just as they take a group to the gas chamber. And Just as I thought the boy is killed in the gas chamber at the end. The father’s evil deeds turns on him.
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/
Tags: Holocaust, Ethics, Morality, War, History
Hits: 384 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

My Thoughts on the Ark of the Covenant

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Sunday, 01 March 2009
Christianity 0 Comments

Ark 

This is a continuation of my ongoing report. I recently decided to listen to the Bible in an effort to gain a closer relationship with God. I purposefully listen not with the intent to study. I have a hard time reading the Bible I just start looking things up and I don't make much progress. I am listening to the Bible Experience (http://www.inspiredby.com/) which is a dramatized NIV version with many famous African American leaders, singers, actors and artists. (Even Samuel L. Jackson) As I listen through the Bible, hopefully I will make it all the way through, I will post notes and thoughts I have.
 
I have set aside a post for the Ark of the Covenant. Mostly because I have always been fascinated with it; ever since I saw Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Childhood dreams and wishes it was still around and that I could be the one to find it. What a pipe dream.
 
The temple dedication is the last chronological reference to the Ark of the Covenant. The contents are listed as the stones of the Covenant.
 
The next reference (familiar to anyone who has seen Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.)
 
The next vague reference is to the raid on the temple by Pharaoh Shishak. Sheshonk I (c. 945-924 BC) may or may not be the "Shishak" of the Old Testament (I Kings 14:25-28; II Chronicles 12:2-12). A quick internet search on Google reveled two opposing ideas of who Shishak is.
 
www.specialtyinterests.net/sheshonk.html
http://www.drfalesbaa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=31
 
The account of Shishak raiding the temple does not specifically mention the ark but it says he stole all the temple treasures. If Sheshonk had taken it, he would have promoted it everywhere and we would no doubt see it written of in his tomb. Egyptians love to write of their victories especially over other gods.
 
When Titus destroyed the second temple, he advertised that he took the holy relics. You can see them to this day on the Arch of Titus. Antiochus Epiphanes stole one when he plundered the temple and a new one had to be made, which would have been the one that Titus took. The point being these were important pieces and when they were taken; it was clear and documented who did the taking.
 
Another theory I have heard was that Solomon sent the Ark to Ethiopia with his son. In fact, the Ethiopians claim to this day it is in the Chapel of the Tablet in Axum, Ethiopia.
 
"As the story goes, the Queen of Sheba, one of Ethiopia's first rulers, traveled to Jerusalem to partake of King Solomon's wisdom. On her way home, she bore the king's son, Menelik. After Menelik went to Jerusalem to visit his father, Solomon gave him a copy of the Ark and commanded that officials of his kingdom travel back to Ethiopia to settle there. But the royal entourage that was traveling to Ethiopia could not bear to be away from the Ark, so they switched the copy with the original and smuggled the real thing out of the country. Menelik learned of this only on his way home and reasoned that since the Ark's powers hadn't destroyed his entourage, it must be God's will that it remain in Ethiopia. " Pasted from <http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080705/news_1c05ark.html>
 
Other people think that it was taken before or after the Babylonia captivity.
 
Here is a clue that it may have still have been in the Temple. Sennacherib planned to take Judah and sent a letter blaspheming God. Hezekiah took the scroll to the Temple of the Lord:
 
"Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth." NASB (2 Kings 19:15)
 
Are the Cherubim the ones on the ark or the ones that were part of the temple? Given the past kings desecrated the temple, to the point they did not know they had the book of Moses in the temple. All over the temple area idols were setup and priest of the other gods were setup there. Could the Ark have still been there?
 
To me it sounds like it was hidden for a reason. For what purpose I can only speculate.
Tags: Mystery, History, Archaeology, Bible, Commentary
Hits: 1152 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Abraham Lincoln, Hero or Villain?

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Monday, 16 February 2009
Government 0 Comments

President’s day is a day where we honor our Presidents. However, some people don’t like certain Presidents. Here is one of the greatest speeches given by what some say was the greatest president while other say he was the worst president.

The Gettysburg Address
 
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
 
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
 
"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
 
I have heard good and bad things of this President and I want to explore this issue in this post.
 
Civil War book
  
 
I listened to lectures by Professor Allen C. Guelzo titled Mr. Lincoln: The Life of Abraham Lincoln.  Dr. Allen C. Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was a great set of lectures. Professor Guelzo definitely has a high esteem for Lincoln.
 
Lincoln has been called the “Great Emancipator” for his part in the freeing the slaves. Many people mistakenly think that was the reason for the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation was not given until later in the war. Critics say it was because he wanted to stop European countries from coming to the aid of the Confederacy and not out a sense of moral obligation. However, Lincoln had was against slavery from the onset and the Republican party at the time was divided into two with those opposed to slavery and those who did not want to upset the apple cart.
 
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free... It will become all one thing, or all the other." Lincoln in his acceptance speech as 1858 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Illinois
 
At that time the question before the government was do they allow new territories to become slave states or do all new territories and states be prohibited from having slaves. Apparently, many of the founding fathers including George Washington felt that slavery was on a decline and that they did not need to address the issue at the onset and birth of the nation. It was assumed that slavery would die a natural death without intervention. The concern for many republicans at the time was that if they allowed it to expand into the new territories it would not die at all.
 
I think it is safe to say that when he was elected it was expected that he would be against slavery and would stop the south from furthering the progress of slavery. That triggered the succession on the south.
 
The question then became, do they have the right to succession from the Union. Lincoln block elected officials and the Supreme Court and started a war to bring them back into the Union. The question then arises was the war legal. The answer is that it was given the outcome, the winner writes the history. Lincoln however imprisoned citizens, members of the press, and even duly elected union legislators for nothing more than expressing concern over Lincoln’s “interpretation” of the Constitution. Does that not stand against everything us, as Americans believe in? Do we not have the right to disagree with our leaders and to speak out against them as a check and balance to their power?
 
Lincoln was determined that the American experiment in democracy must not fail. He argued that if a democracy allows the minority to leave anytime they don't like what the majority is doing we would be splintered into hundreds of smaller nations. The motto, united we stand divided we fall, was a motto he agreed with wholeheartedly. I have to admit it is a convincing argument, that if democracy is our goal we should fight to preserve it. However, is democracy our goal and supreme value?
 
Lincoln did offer to reunited the union and allow the Confederate states to determine for themselves when they would discontinue slavery. He also said that he did not have malice toward any; he just wanted the union restored above all.
 
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan."
—Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
 
The North won and the nation was reunited with slavery outlawed. No one can argue that the end of slavery is a good thing. The question is, were the lost lives worth the preservation of the union? If the Union is worth preserving then the question then is does the ends justify the means. We have been taught that it did. Were we taught that because the winner writes the history?
 
I have to look at it from a different point of view. Do we always have to view this in terms of the nation? Can we look at it from God's point of view? Does this further His kingdom and purpose? My freedom is something I hold dear, I would lay my life down for it, but God, and His purpose comes first.
 
Is President Lincoln a hero or villain? I don't know that he was either. What do you think?
 
Tags: Civil War, History, Politics
Hits: 543 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Fingerprints of the Gods

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Monday, 19 January 2009
Book Reviews 0 Comments

altI came across this very intriguing book about the evidence of a very ancient lost civilization. A very intriguing speculation and hypothesis. Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock is a fascinating exploration of what he believes is a lost prehistoric civilization that was destroyed by a flood. He concludes that our civilization will be destroyed by fire some time soon. (Maybe 23 Dec 2012). In his book he discusses such monuments as the pyramids of Giza as if they are calendrical devices that declare ancient science and mystical secrets. These monuments were built to preserve and transmit the knowledge and inscribe secrets in hidden texts within these monuments. He talks about the grand precessional cycle and how it relates to past disasters. In particular an ancient disaster that led to a worldwide flood.

 
He talks about an old Egyptian myth of a king who built the pyramids for the coming flood. (Discovered by John Greaves). He also quotes Josephus writing about the people before the flood who had, "A peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order." All of these ancient references show that this ancient civilization understood that it took the sun 25,000 years to orbit the galaxy. In every ancient culture there is a reference to a world wide flood and a few survivors who repopulated the world. Sound familiar?
 
Great research and well documented. However, in the book there is too much verbiage on his trips a 500 page book that could be condensed to 250-300 pages. Cut out all the fluff, it boars me to tears to hear his story about taking a train up to an Incan village.
 
The book has an interesting hypostasis but is still just speculation. I have to admit and agree with im that the fact that almost every ancient civilization has a flood story does indicated that there was, in fact, a global flood. He agrees with the Bible that the people prior to the flood were very advanced and understood far more than often given credit.
 
Good read check it out.
Tags: Culture, History, Mythology
Hits: 326 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Friday, 09 January 2009
Book Reviews 0 Comments

altRevolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (Unabridged) by Gordon S. Wood. This book was a great listen. It covered the founding fathers in a way I haven't heard or read yet. It was balanced. They were not portrayed as demigods or vilified as demons. They were portrayed in a manner that was balanced and informational. It is far better than one of my history books that vilifies them for what was then a social norm because now it is considered unconscionable. Other, mostly older books, portray them as some type of titanic individuals who were always noble and unblemished. It is refreshing to read something that does not try to convert the readers to their point of view.

The book covers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Aaron Burr, & John Adams.
 
It is fair to say that the United States is nothing that any of these men singularly envisioned it to become. Instead, it is a culmination of what each of them envisioned. This, as it turns out, is the best possible outcome. None of us would want the country that anyone of them individual imaged. We are the beneficiaries of a corporate endeavor taken on by these men. We did not get a pure democracy where the rule of the majority outweighs the minority. Collectively they developed a system of government never before seen where majority rules but not at the expense of the minority or one. This system of government derives its power from the people, not the aristocracy or heredity. Collectively they set the stage for the emancipation of the slaves and women's rights.
 
I see many arguments about the founding fathers where they try to say "they" collectively where this or that by sighting an example of one of these men. With this group, you cannot take what one of them believed or envisioned the future to be. You have to view them collectively, for that is how they build this country, collectively.
 
I have a greater appreciation for what they did and what it took to create this nation. I still think it is flawed, but not as bad as any other government yet devised by man. When the founding fathers established this nation, they created a government with checks and balances to control corruption and keep the government from becoming a tyranny to the people. 
 
The true power in this nation comes from the people, or what we call popular opinion. Popular opinion is what rules this nation. It was true at the birth of this nation and it is still true today. By the 1790's many of them knew they needed to influence popular opinion in order to get elected or stay elected. Around that time, the press learned that they could influence popular opinion and have done so ever since. With technology, the press can influence popular opinion at a greater level and some people are beginning to think it is moving from influence to controlling popular opinion. The one good thing about technology, or perhaps it is a bad thing, is that everyone can have an opinion and disseminate it without the press controlling it. This blog would be a great example of that. However, with everyone stating their opinion, their voice may be lost in a sea of unintelligible voices.
 
What the Critics Say
"These pieces add perspective to the founding fathers." (Publishers Weekly)
"The most respected among all scholars of the colonial and Revolutionary periods." (The Washington Post Book World)
 
Publisher's Summary
Even when the greatness of the founding fathers isn't being debunked, it is a quality that feels very far away from us indeed: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Co. seem as distant as marble faces carved high into a mountainside. We may marvel at the fact that fate placed such a talented cohort of political leaders in that one place, the east coast of North America, in colonies between Virginia and Massachusetts, and during that one fateful period, but that doesn't really help us explain it or teach us the proper lessons to draw from it. What did make the founders different? Now, the incomparable Gordon Wood has written a book that shows us, among many other things, just how much character did matter.
Revolutionary Characters offers a series of brilliantly illuminating studies of the men who came to be known as the founding fathers. Each life is considered in the round, but the thread that binds the work together and gives it the cumulative power of a revelation is this idea of character as a lived reality for these men. For these were men, Gordon Wood shows, who took the matter of character very, very seriously. They were the first generation in history that was self-consciously self-made, men who understood the arc of lives, as of nations, as being one of moral progress. They saw themselves as comprising the world's first true meritocracy, a natural aristocracy as opposed to the decadent Old World aristocracy of inherited wealth and station.
Gordon Wood's wondrous accomplishment here is to bring these men and their times down to earth and within our reach, showing us just who they were and what drove them. In so doing, he shows us that although a lot has changed in 200 years, to an amazing degree the virtues these founders defined for themselves are the virtues we aspire to still.
©2006 Gordon Wood; (P)2006 Penguin Audio, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., and Books on Tape. All rights reserved. Penguin Audio is a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
 
Pasted from
<http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_PENG_000497&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes>
Tags: Civics, Government, Politics, Founders, History, United States
Hits: 299 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 January 2009
Lecture Reviews 0 Comments

altI listened to a series of lectures titled "Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues" which was given by Professor Michael Surgrue of Princeton University.   There are 16 lectures, each lasting 45 minutes. 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=463&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History 

I am not going to outline what the course covered; I will just give my impressions of it.
 
Socrates' idea of the forms is a theory that, basically, says the imperfect is here in what we would call Space-Time and the true forms are somewhere else and perfect. This is similar at this high level as the fall of humankind in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Similar in that perfection is not found here, in our universe, and only a shadow of truth is here. This is much like the concept that our lives here are a shadow of our true spiritual selves. Yeah it is deep. Think about that for a while.
 
I wonder what people who are high think about this? I bet Plato would give them a trip!
 
One thing you learn when you read Plato is that you don't learn the answers to your questions, or his questions, for that matter. You learn more on how to think. When you read, Plato you are forced to think and in doing so learn how to get your mind out of stale modes of thinking. This is a good thing. I know too many people who are afraid to think for themselves. They want answers from someone else or they give up reason to hang on to their assumptions or beliefs.
 
Sidebar:
I see this in Christians as well. They just want someone to tell them what the truth is. They call this faith, and over use the term. God gave us something that no other creature has. Reason! Our faith should be based on reason. Why would God give us reason and ask us to have blind faith? We should use our reason. God did not give us a head to use as a nice hat rack. Christians, who have blind faith and sound silly with illogical statements, give all Christians a bad name. I think people are afraid that if they have an open mind it will erode their faith. The opposite is true, at least for me.
 
I picked this lecture as a means to better understand the theory of natural law. Plato started the idea, but did not coin the phrase. His student, Aristotle, took the idea further to his theory of natural justice. I plan to follow the trail of thought on Natural Law up to the founding of our country. I don't know why, but, so far, it has been a rewarding journey, a trail through history with gems of knowledge along the way.
 
Unexpected Gem:
What is the difference between a dialectic and a sophist. Both are types of debaters, both with different motives. Socrates and I would consider a sophist to be like a used car salesmen. A sophist’s goal in a debate or argument is to win the debate. On the other hand, the goal of a dialectic is to discover truth. I have always looked at debate (argument) as a means to find the truth not the assumption of truth. This is more along the lines of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. I understand that many people learn to debate like sophists, in other words the purpose of the debate is to win the argument, prove you are right and so on.  
 
Dialectics will spend more time asking questions and just looking for holes in an argument. This thinking is more like the thinking of an auditor. The goal is to exhaustively examine the claims to determine if it is truth. The level of certainty of truth that is sought is a different matter. 
 
Lawyers are great examples of sophists, they don’t seek the truth they seek to win the case, to prove innocence, even where none exists. While debating or making a point they will use tricks to make themselves and statements look more credible while at the same time attempt to do the opposite to their interlocutor. When I listen to debates and hear the tricks I know that they are not being intellectually honest; they are just trying to sell and idea to the audience.
 
 
Tags: History, Sophism, Dialectics, Metaphysics, Philosophy
Hits: 334 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

The Pirate Coast

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 27 December 2008
Book Reviews 0 Comments

“After Tripoli declared war on the United States in 1801, Barbary pirates captured 300 U.S. sailors and marines. President Jefferson sent navy squadrons to the Mediterranean, but he also authorized a secret mission to overthrow the government of Tripoli. He chose an unlikely diplomat, William Eaton, to lead the mission, but before Eaton departed, Jefferson grew wary of the affair and withdrew his support. Astoundingly, Eaton persevered, gathering a ragtag army, including eight U.S. Marines, and leading them on a brutal march across 500 miles of desert. After surviving sandstorms, treachery, and near death from thirst, Eaton achieved a remarkable victory on "the shores of Tripoli", as commemorated in the Marine Corps Hymn. His triumph gained freedom for the American hostages and newfound respect for the young United States, but for Eaton, the aftermath wasn't sweet. When he dared to reveal that the president had abandoned him, Jefferson set out to crush him.”  – Audible.com

alt
 
 
The book takes some time to get to O'Bannon and the Marines. In fact there is quite a bit of information about the political climate then O'Bannon. However, the few references of O'Bannon show him to be a true Marine. Standing at attention even with guns pointed at him as Arabs fit with rage yell as if to kill them. The Pasha hugged and called him a brave man when that incident was over.
 
William Eaton, a self-righteous patriot, definitely would ensure justice prevails no matter if the heavens fell. He lived this way and in the end, it would cost him. I don't know if I am proud that he would follow his convictions no matter the cost or if I feel he could have been less brash and not brought as much upon him.
 
This story seems to have been played out over and over in History. Also this particular group of Arabs or Bedouin, seem to be impossible to deal with. They caused more delays and jeopardized the entire operation because the wanted to renegotiate or someone cheated someone out of money.
 
Eaton, the Marine and Hamet took the city of Darnah and held it. Mean while Lear decided he did not want Eaton to take credit for solving the problem sailed for Tripoli to start peace talks. Lear did establish peace with the US and the current Pasha Yusuf. Lear gave more than was need to gain the release of the prisoners and the treaty had secret clauses and did not state the US would never pay another bribe. The treaty was supposed to allow Hamet to be reunited with his family. However the secret clause signed by Lear and Yusuf said the Pasha could keep his family for four years. Lear never intended to obligate the Pasha to return the family members.
 
They recalled Eaton and Hamet leaving the towns people who joined them to feel the wrath of Yusuf.
 
Eaton was enraged that the US was not going to fulfill its promise to Hamet and that Lear had give so much in bribes to gain the peace.
 
Eaton returned home to find that he was a hero. Everyone credited him with the peace that was in Tripoli. The two parties at the time Federalist and the Republicans both tried to use him as their hero and Eaton wouldn't have any of that. In fact he felt we were all Americans and we should leave it at that.
 
Eaton began to criticize the administration concerning Lear. Unknown to Eaton, Jefferson and Washington had a falling out before Washington's death and a number of letters damaging to Jefferson where in Lear's possession. They disappeared and no doubt Jefferson owed Lear a favor and would not bring him down for fear of what might be revealed. Eaton persisted and Jefferson worked like any politician to protect his interests. He tried to destroy Eaton, but Eaton the obstinate would not give up. The federalist party then started to use Eaton as there weapon against the Jefferson administration. (The more things change the more they stay the same. Politics has not changes one bit in 200 years.)
 
During this time Aaron Burr knowing that Eaton was upset at the Jefferson administration decided to let him in on his plot to create a Western United States. Eaton being a patriot over everything went to Jefferson about the plot. Jefferson thought of it as an empty threat.
 
Later Eaton would find a letter with intelligence about Aaron Burr's exploits in the West and his building of an army. Eaton passed the information on to Jefferson's administration.
 
He was again used as a pawn in Jefferson's dealing and was finally awarded some money from congress for his work in Barbary. Eaton was not satisfied and continued to drink and gamble to his ruin.
 
This book has tainted my perception of our young nation. I know see that it is much that same today as then. Politicians who will do anything to stay in power, manipulate people for their own ends, lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud and not keep their word.
 
The book also brings to light a point that doesn't necessarily surprise me but does give me a moment of pause. The only thing that stop the Barbary Pirates was war. Lear for all of his negotiations for peace did not bring peace. It was not until France and England later defeated them in combat and took over the area did the piracy stop.
 
The parallels with today's world are uncanny. The Barbary Pirates are similar in action and ethics to today's terrorists. It does appear that peace for them will only come by the sword and the only one to stop them is by the sword. How unfortunate.
 
Someone once said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. How true. I have however learned from Eaton a great truth. We should all be Americans and not a political party. His discussed with dirty on dishonorable politics rings true in my ears. I however will not become a drunk or obsessed with it. 
 
There is one last thing I learned. Marines kick a$$. Semper Fi!
Tags: Piracy, Bribery, Islam, Religion, Politics, Marine Corps, History
Hits: 254 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 27 December 2008
Book Reviews 0 Comments

altAudio book review of the unabridged version of “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius  (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus circa A.D. 69-circa 140).  I have to say this one is very long and yet I find I like listening to the stories.  For an ancient work, it is really quite good.  I also have to say that the lives of the first 12 Caesars are more like the people in Dynasty or daytime soap operas.  The book is really quite graphic and is not suitable for younger children.  I found when I was driving the kids to their grandparents in the morning I had to turn it off a few times.  The Audio book is 13 hours long and I think I could actually sit and listen to the whole thing at one time.  Trust me there are some things I had to look up like what the Equestrians: were and what a Praetorian is.  Then there is the place names that are all but meaningless to me, well I do know where Greece is and where the Germans were.  All of that aside, the gossip is crazy, who is sleeping with who and are they related.  Who killed who, and on it goes.   

Here is the scoop “From the dignified grace of Augustus to the cruel debauchery of Nero, this history chronicles all the vices and virtues of the first twelve rulers of Imperial Rome. The Twelve Caesars was written based on the information of eyewitnesses and public records. It conveys a very accurate picture of court life in Rome and contains some of the raciest and most salacious material to be found in all of ancient literature. The writing is clear, simple, and easy to understand, and the numerous anecdotes of juicy scandal, bitter court intrigue, and murderous brigandage easily hold their own against the most spirited content of today's tabloids.”  - www.audible.com
 
One last note:  I found some very interesting comments about Vespasian who was the father of Titus.  Both became emperor and both were in Judea.  The writer claimed that the prophecy of Jesus birth was of Vespasian.  He did not reference Jesus but said that there was a prophecy that a world leader would come from Judea and attributed it to Vespasian.  Also, the writer also said that Vespasian had put some spit in a blind man’s eye and he could see and a lame man had touch Vespasian’s heal and he was healed.  Wow, those stories sound familiar.  I guess the Romans knew the art of “Spin”.
Tags: Rome, History
Hits: 381 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

Alexander the Great by Arrian

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 27 December 2008
Book Reviews 0 Comments

alt

I just finished the book “Alexander the Great” by the Roman historian Arrian.

One word of advice, you will need a map of Alexander’s campaigns. The names of people and the names of places can quickly confuse you if you don’t have a map of the area. Over all I can see why Alexander was a great leader, he cared for his men and he was a fair and just man. There was a story that while Alexander and his men were in the dessert and some of his men found a helmet’s worth of water. When the men brought it to him he dumped it out and the ground. He told them he would not drink if they could not drink. Definitely a great leader.
 
Other than that, there were blow by blow military engagements. I noticed that he would often do the unexpected. He would do what his opponent would not think he would do, or did what they would not think it was possible. There is a lot of good military tactics you can learn from this book. No doubt the Romans used this book for that very reason.
Tags: Greek, Military, Rome, History
Hits: 259 Continue reading →
Donald E. Hester

How the Irish Saved Civilization

by Donald E. Hester
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
on Saturday, 27 December 2008
Book Reviews 0 Comments

Fighting IrishI just finished reading (listening – audio book) “How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Thomas Cahill.  After completing the book, 1/16 of me was proud to be Irish.  The book recounts the fall of civilized Rome with insights on to the Roman thought at that time.  During this fall of Rome you can see that as civilization became less and less educated, or less civilized, the more barbaric they became.  This seems to be true for most of the continent of Europe.  While this was happening on continental Europe, a strange and barbaric band of Celts, on the most remote and western part of the known world, where becoming more and more educated and civilized. 

 

Key things I learned or found interesting.

 

Before Christianity

  • Celts spanned from Galatia to Gal and all the way to Ireland.
  • Celts ran around naked a lot.
  • Sex was casual
  • Marriage was not lifelong but had to be renewal annually on Feb 1.
  • Irish women were very strong willed back then, as they seem to be today.

 

After Christianity (Patrick Introduced)

  • St Patrick was a Roman citizen
  • Sex was still casual (compared to Roman Catholic)
  • They still ran around naked a lot?  (It is not very warm up in those parts)
  • There have been differences in the past between Irish Catholic and Roman Catholic.
  • Women where in positions of authority in the church until the Pope put a stop to it.
  • I learned about the red, green and white martyrdom (you can read the book if you want to learn about it, or cheat and use Google)
  • The Irish where some of the first to send out missions to the unsaved
  • Their monastic way of life was unique in the world at that time
  • They liked to copy books (OOOHHH! copyright infringement)

 

You get this picture of a bunch of naked drunks who are making copies without consent.  Does that sound familiar?  Seriously, the Irish are heroes and I am proud to be 1/16th.

 

There are so many other precious gems in the book.  I would suggest you read it.  St. Patrick’s Breastplate is a very good prayer.  You should check it out.  Here is a link (What do I have to do, don’t you know how to use Google?) http://prayerfoundation.org/st_patricks_breastplate_prayer.htm

 

Tags: Sociology, Irish, Monk, Monastic, History
Hits: 249 Continue reading →
Copyright © 2012 Donald E. Hester. Website Designed By Purple Cow Websites.