A caller to a radio talk show recently maintained that, if you didn't believe that Jesus rose physically and bodily from the dead and ascended into heaven, then you weren't a real Christian. This controversy has arisen because of the TV special on the Discovery channel in which some guy claims to have discovered the tomb of Jesus and his family (including wife and child) in Jerusalem. This couldn't be true, the lady maintained, because it would invalidate Christianity or in other words, if it was true, all Christians might as well pack their bags and start looking around for another religion. This discovery, if true, would take the heart out of Christianity.
The talk show host said, "Wait a minute, I thought the heart of Christianity was Jesus' teachings not the miracles, not whether he literally arose from the dead. I thought the heart of Christianity was Matthew 25 where he was talking to his disciples and told them what they had to do to get into heaven. It had nothing to do with what they believed. It had to do with what they did, how they lived their lives. Jesus said that the ones that would go to heaven were the ones who had seen him naked and had clothed him, who had seen him hungry and had fed him, who had seen him thirsty and given him something to drink, who had given him shelter, visited him in prison. You get the idea. Someone who had done some tangible thing to help him. And his disciples said, "Lord when did we see you naked and not given you clothes, when did we see you hungry or thirsty and not given you food or drink?" etc. Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you have done it or not done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it or not done it unto me."
Now the talk show host said, isn't this the heart of Christianity? Oh no, the caller maintained, the heart of Christianity is whether Jesus physically and bodily rose from the dead in which case his bones could not be found anywhere on earth. So this is really the cleavage in Christianity today: those who maintain they're going to heaven because they have a correct belief system regardless of whether they do as Jesus said and lift a finger to help others and those whose beliefs may not be correct but take literally Jesus' admonition to help their fellow man, in particular those less fortunate than they are. There are some who help their fellow man, to be sure, but who still don't qualify for Jesus' approval. For example, the Bush Administration has done a lot to help the rich and their cronies. I don't think this is what Jesus had in mind: helping the haves and the have mores!
Thomas Jefferson went through the Bible and took out everything extraneous to get at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Isn't this what Jesus came here to do: to teach people how to live better lives? The Jefferson Bible gets rid of all the miracles and mumbo jumbo and gets to the heart of Jesus' teachings. There are some who believe that one gains entrance to heaven, not by his or her actions, but by believing the correct line of mumbo jumbo. Isn't that the same as brainwashing? Jesus actually got in trouble with the Jewish religion over the same issue. There were the Jews who were literalists and legalists who thought all they had to do to get into heaven was to follow the Jewish law literally. The basic point of Jesus teaching was that this is not the correct or true way to be. He called these people hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two main Jewish sects in the time of Jesus. They were more concerned with doing rituals correctly and a literal understanding of the Torah than they were with helping other people. A correct understanding of Jewish ritual included how people were to be punished: "who was to be stoned, who strangled, who burned, and who beheaded." Custom and ritual trumped compassion and empathy. It's obvious which side of this issue Jesus was on, and yet contemporary Christians, to a large extent, are more aligned with the Pharisees and Sadducees than they are with the teachings of Jesus.
The Barbarians, a series recently on the History Channel, brings to light another interesting fact. The Vandals from whom we get the word vandalism were actually Christians. They were Aryan Christians as opposed to Roman Christians, the difference having to do with scholastic interpretations regarding the Trinity. So even barbarians evidently were not above quibbling over scholastic differences. However, the barbarians' main concern was which god or God was powerful enough to give them victory in war. Some of them only converted to Christianity when they were convinced that this would give them the edge in warfare. Childeric, the Frank, for example, converted as a last resort after he had come close to losing his life on the battlefield and then became convinced Christianity was correct after he was able to pull his irons out of the fire, so to speak, and go on to win the battle. The Roman Emperor, Constantine, made Christianity the State Religion of Rome because he became convinced that it would help him to achieve victory on the battlefield. Thus Christianity became a major religion not by virtue of the fact that people became convinced that Jesus' teachings were correct so much as they were convinced that by becoming Christians they would have success in war.
So what has changed? Throughout history most (if not all) wars have been fought over religion. Catholics and Protestants have fought for centuries. Different sects of Protestants have fought other sects of Protestants. Hindus have fought Buddhists. Christians and Muslims have fought for centuries. Religious persecution has been rampant - against the Jews, against Christian heretics such as Jean d'Arc. Remember her? She was burned at the stake. Religion is more about who's right and who deserves to win than it is about empathy and compassion or helping one's fellow man as Jesus tought. If that grave in Jerusalem really contains Jesus' body, it's a wonder they haven't claimed to have seen him rolling over in it due to the complete perversion of his teachings over the last 2000 years! Onward Christian soldiers!
