Qur'an and Bible do not disagree: Jesus

Explanation why Qur'an and Bible do not disagree

I am often asked why the Qur'an states that Jesus did not die, though he was taken up to heaven by God, in seeming contradiction to the Gospels who witness that Jesus did die before he was taken up to heaven by God. Here is the passage from the Qur'an:

Surah 4: 157-159
And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

And this passage is important for understand my explanation of the difference:

Surah 5: 110
When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

When the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) hundreds of years had passed since Jesus Christ had risen to heaven. Christianity had been rejected by the large majority of the Jews (this is observed and commented on in the last two lines of verse 110 above.) The Jews, who had seen their own temple in Jerusalem destroyed, claimed that Jesus either never existed or was just a man who had died and been buried. Christianity had great faith, and these early Catholics had withstood great persecutions and martyrdoms, and did not waiver in their faith of the resurrected Jesus. However, there were many heresies that had to be argued through and put down, and more were coming. Some heresies dealt with whether Jesus had a divine nature, but they foreshadowed a time when there would be Christian heresies that Jesus was simply a wise man who had lived, died and was buried.

God is the greatest source of wisdom about human nature, and knew that there would be a time when the resurrection of Jesus would be denied. It is almost as though he knew back then that there would be "DaVinci Code" books and heretical influence of secularism that would deny Jesus in all of his divine and prophetic aspects (impugn the virgin Mary, declare that Jesus "must" have had secret sexual relationships, call Jesus a great teacher but completely a man and not sent by God nor fathered by the Holy Spirit, and, most recently, claim to find the buried body of the man Jesus and deny the resurrection.) You will notice when you read the Qur'an that it is actually a stouter defense of the sanctity of Mary, Jesus as sent and empowered by Allah, the purity of Jesus' message and the truth of his miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus to Allah in heaven than many who consider themselves Christian and yet dilute the message with heresy. Therefore the Muslim people were entrusted by Allah with the definitive statement that Jesus did not die (that is, he did not die in body, and decompose in the grave) but that Jesus ascended into heaven, both body and spirit. This is why there seems to be a disagreement, but it is really a matter of where the emphasis is placed. Islam was entrusted, almost like a treasury, with the unwavering belief and truth that Jesus was not a man who died. Because Allah was so firm on this point with the Prophet (PBUH) the Qur'an wording assumes that witnesses to Jesus' death must have been mistaken. But whether or not the body of Jesus spent time as one dead was not the objective of the holy message given to the Prophet Muhammad. The objective was to state unequivocally for the ages that Jesus did not die as a man but was raised to Allah upon fulfillment of his ministry, and that Jesus did indeed live a virginal and miraculous life. Rather than denying the miraculous and Allah granted life of Jesus, Islam actually affirms it in the most firm way, as a treasury to both faiths, because the Muslims are unshakable that Jesus was not a human body buried set of bones to be found by modern nonbelievers and publicity seekers, but that the truth is that he did not "die" (into the earth) but was ascended by Allah when the message of Jesus was rejected by the Jews and so his ministry was completed. This is why there really is not a difference that is one to be quarreling about because both the Bible and the Qur'an are divinely inspired and serve God's will. The Qur'an spends much time affirming the sanctity of the Virgin Mary and the role of Jesus as Messiah, who was rejected by the Jewish priesthood, and so ascended to heaven to God, bodily and in spirit.

Muslims state the Qur'an has never changed and take appropriate pride in that, as they should, as the word of Allah. I take great pride that they record also the unchanging truth that Jesus was sent by Allah to be the Messiah, born of the virgin Mary, ministered and performed miracles, and was raised physically and spiritually to God when he was rejected as the Messiah. I hope this posting helps bridge some of the gap of misunderstanding that exists among the faiths, much of the gap being one of misunderstanding and not of fact. God inspires emphasis according to the needs of humans at the times of the prophets through the ages, and what Moses recorded differs in focus (the law) than what the Gospels recorded (the ministry of Jesus) and what Muhammad recorded (the oneness of Allah and his will.) Just because there is different emphasis does not mean that the truth is changed; it means that people of the time need to be reminded by God of what is important to them, especially if there is danger of straying.

Why Jesus Did Not Manifest All God's Knowledge

People often wonder, if Jesus was Son of God through the Holy and Spirit, and knew God's mind, why Jesus was not "all knowing." They point to places in the scriptures where he had to be told things on some occasions, while on other occasions he knew of events outside of his knowing. The answer is quite simple if you think about it. God cannot take on a human form in his totality. Let's look at some obvious simple scenarios to illustrate this concept, if Jesus were totally encompassing God within his body. He'd know how many atoms of what charge, orientation, and motion are within the bench he sits on, the benches his friends sit on, the mouthful of food he eats, the food they eat, what each atom is doing within each of his friends' bodies, how many bugs were ground up in the grain that they are eating, how long it will take each mouthful of food to digest (and whether any nutrition was gleaned from it), how many bacteria are on his tongue if he brushed his teeth that morning, or not, and ditto for everyone else. He'd simultaneously know all that information and more for every living being and every inert structure on earth. Obviously, one cannot function as a human being and simultaneously experience the totality of God's knowledge. Jesus was selective in receiving from God the knowledge that was necessary for his earthly ministry.

Bible Reading: Luke, about Jesus' ministry

Luke 4:14-15

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; and the fame of him went out through the whole country. And he taught in their synagogues and was honored by all.

This passage occurs right in the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. First he was baptized by St. John the Baptist, and then Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit that appeared during his baptism, went into the desert for forty days of fasting and prayer. It was during this time he was “tempted,” which means the devil “offered” Jesus dominion in the physical world, if he would only not worship God, i.e. fulfill his mission as Messiah. He and the devil and he quoted scripture back and forth and the devil could not prevail so he departed. So immediately after Jesus completed his forty days of fasting and prayer, he returned to Galilee and “the fame of him went out through the whole country” and “he taught in the synagogues.”

Now, I point out this passage to teach something that many people miss. Notice that Jesus is preaching and has fame before he performs his first miracle. Many people assume that Jesus gained his reputation, attention and fame through his miracles. But actually, he was first an itinerate preacher, teaching in the synagogues and being honored before assembling the Apostles and before performing his first miracle.

Why is this important? Think about it-that in a time of many scholars, scribes, preachers, and would be messiahs, Jesus distinguished himself immediately in his ministry by preaching and teaching in the synagogues. He did not have to “pull in” followers or earn honor, praise and fame by performing miracles. He did so solely with the power and truth of his message, conveyed with the authentic “power of the Spirit.” Jesus started his ministry, as was sampled in advance when he was the twelve year old boy found teaching in the Temple of Jerusalem, as a teacher of the Kingdom of God. He very quickly, in a matter of weeks, came out of nowhere and established himself as a teacher and preacher, “through the whole country” and was “honored by all.”

In fact, his first opposition was when he returned to his home town to preach in Nazareth. He had to flee the town. Yet that was the only “blip,” although an instructive one as people pondered his words, “No prophet is acceptable in his own country” (Luke 4:24.) For immediately upon leaving Nazareth:

And he went down to Capharnaum, a town of Galilee. And there he was teaching them on the Sabbath. And they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority (Luke 4:25.)

So this is a little subtly of timing, but I think pointing this out will help those of you who strive to know who Jesus truly was by thinking about this with some care. He was a reputed and honored teacher first; and he did not have to “launch” his mission with the Apostles or by performing miracles. He drew an audience and fame, even to the point of teaching on the Sabbath, by sounding teaching and preaching, and people were astonished at his word of authority. What this means is he did not bracket or context his teaching as theology or interpretation of the Torah, but he spoke simply and with authority about what the true meaning of the Kingdom of God and the prophecies were. People could tell that he was speaking with the certainty of truthful knowledge and this astonished the listeners. People were not impressed with his entourage, as he had none, or his miracles, as he had not performed any yet, but recognized immediately that he was such an authoritative teacher, a rabbi, the likes of which they had never seen before.

Sometimes in discussion you might talk to people who question your faith, and you find yourself in an apologist role. Often the entry point for skeptical discussion is whether or not Jesus performed miracles. The implication is that people believed in Jesus only because of purported miracles. While he did perform many miracles, beyond those recorded in the Gospels, as the Gospels say that he performed many more than they could record, the foundation of his mission was his role as a teacher. He impressed and transformed people by what he taught, and the light he illuminated on the mysteries of who God is, what God expects of people, and how to achieve the Kingdom of God. Some skeptics attack Jesus based on some sort of scoreboard about miracles, but that totally does not represent the foundation of his ministry, which was to teach in the synagogues, and eventually large masses of people, about God and God’s will with the authority of one who thoroughly knew God. Jesus performed miracles because of the abundance of grace within in, because he was compassionate, and because he knew that this would aid in people’s belief, and so God gave him the power to heal physical and mental ailments. But people who think that this was the sole basis for his following would be wrong.

The bulk of his mission was teaching, which he did by teaching people how to pray, how to obey the commandments, by giving them the beatitudes, by showing people devotion through example, by explaining the nature of God either directly or through parables, and by teaching and forming the Apostles and disciples. If you think about it, history would have gone the same way if all Jesus did was to teach, until he provoked the Jewish authorities with his teaching, was crucified, and resurrected, with the only miracle being that of his death and resurrection. St. Paul makes that very clear in his writing, that it is all about Jesus crucified and arising. Jesus neither needed to perform the curing miracles nor did the Apostles need to “make up” stories about the miracles to impress. What impressed the people (positively) and the authorities (negatively) were the authority of his teaching, and then his rising from the dead. So you can have one hundred percent confidence that Jesus performed the miracles exactly as they are written in the Gospels, because they were not pivotal to his mission, so there would be no reason to lie about them. Skeptical scholars simply are not being logical when they argue that the miracles were propaganda. Everyone and his cow were claiming to do miracles, at least in ancient times, when the Old Testament prophets wrangled against idolaters and magicians. So no Gospel writer would make up miracles thinking anyone would be hearing something totally new. What was new was the miracles actually did occur as presented in the Gospels. They aided the people’s faith and alleviated their suffering, which is why Jesus performed them. But you can read quite clearly that the heart of the ministry of Jesus was his teaching, and his resurrection from the dead.

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 10

Chapter 10: “Jesus Declares His Identity”

This is another great, enjoyable and important chapter, and this chapter is the conclusion of the Pope Benedict’s book, which is the first volume of his planned two volumes about the life of Jesus Christ, his “personal search for the face of the Lord.” It is great that he put pen to paper during his search, and shared it with great value for many others. Because it is a personal search, Benedict includes only the context and words that serves his direction, which is fine. But I am compelled to add context again in this chapter, so that there is greater explanatory value for the general reader.

Jesus declaring his identity was not important because it was part of a hide-and-go-seek with Jewish and Roman authorities, or as a measure of how much he comprehended his own mission. I’m going to use some contemporary language and examples to better illuminate why the “identity” of Jesus was so important to the general populace, both his supporters and his enemies and why, therefore, he replied as he did at various times.

In those days people did not have resumes (C.V.’s) or job descriptions. The closest that one came to self identifying an occupation or an identity was actually to state who you were the son of (who was your father.) You actually see this at one point in the Gospels when the people react with amazement to Jesus’ preaching, asking “is he not the son of Joseph the carpenter? And is his mother not Mary?” A son’s father’s identification was the son’s resume, job description, social standing, and outlook in life all rolled into one. Your father’s name was like your ID card. And so the people are amazed that a carpenter’s son is preaching. This was also another reason why Jesus’ physical genealogy to the House of David (King and Prophet) was so emphasized. Now it’s a little less strange that Jesus should be at the very least a preacher, and potential leader, if he is descended (on both sides no less) from the House of David. It’s like having an extra trump father ID card. So it’s not just the fulfillment of prophecy about a Messiah from the House of David that is important, as it is the more mundane social necessity of people to understand how to relate to Jesus by knowing “who is his father and what does his father do.” You can now see why “Son of God” and “Son of Man” has huge day to day meaning to everyone, not just to the learned religious. I’ll get back to this some more in a bit, but first I need to discuss a second “form” of “resume, CV, job description, and social standing.” This is a title.

Who one’s father is served, as we have shown, to provide much of the information about a son’s identity. But for the religious, social, military and aristocratic elite there also existed the “title.” One can be a King, priest, centurion, daughter of a noble and those and similar titles map pretty closely to what we would call today one’s “job description” within a rarefied job class. Remember the very moving miracle where Jesus is approached by the centurion, who asks for a cure for his servant, as he states that on his command people come and go, but that he is not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof. Jesus marvels at his faith and heals the servant without entering the centurion’s house. Many do not notice, though, that the centurion is bestowing on Jesus a compliment and equality of title in his speech to Jesus. What is unsaid but implied is that just as the centurion can order people to come and go, he relates to Jesus’ authority to also come and go at will, to command others, and ultimately, to command the coming and going of his miraculous healing power. The centurion is actually the first person in the Gospels to give Jesus a title of secular power, a commander, a centurion, a leader, as a title, doing so obliquely by equating themselves. While the purpose of the Gospels was not to record every detail, giving “color” to the events, we can be assured without reading it that this message and implied honorific was not lost on any who witnessed or heard about it. When someone has a title, either inherited, as with Kings, or bestowed, as by the centurion on Jesus, this provides a reasonable set of expectations about the person’s current and future actions. When Jesus does not deny the compliment that the centurion bestows upon him, there is tacit acceptance by Jesus that leadership is indeed part of his “title.” However, he does not take a title willingly throughout the years of his ministry exactly so that he is not hemmed in to the understood conventions of those titles in those days, because he spans much, much more.

This is why Jesus is not being coy, mysterious, or confused when he replies or refers to titles somewhat obliquely. Each title carries with it a set of well understood expectations in both a societal and salvation history context. Because Jesus spans and encompasses more than a single title, he takes care not to accept one title, which would result in people, understandably, only focusing on that purpose (“job description”) and ignoring the parts of his preaching that does not map to that singular purpose. So now you can see the problems with various titles such as Messiah, where as soon as Jesus would accept one title, the other potential titles would be presumed to not apply, and expectations to see his “action plan” for his accepted “job description” would explode. This was why, as Benedict puts it, “Already during Jesus’ lifetime, people tried by applying to him categories that were familiar to them and were therefore considered apt for deciphering his mystery” (p. 239.) I think Benedict, like everyone else, is not clear enough in understanding why Jesus is being “mysterious.” It’s quite clear if you look at it this way. Benedict is wise in questioning the incredible intellectual exercises, such as “categorizing” the number of times Jesus is “may” have used this title, or “is said to have used that title but we don’t really believe the scriptures that he really said it, it’s those political disciples putting words in this mouth.” To use another contemporary example, that is like assuming that the several dozen quotes of Jesus about his title are the entire set of mysterious substances to analyze in the laboratory. Let’s look at how bizarre is that assumption.

In the time of Jesus people didn’t spend time alone, unless they were in the fields shepherding. Certainly as he traveled and lived with dozens of people Jesus was during the time of his ministry surrounded by people all of the time. During all of this time he and the disciples would have been talking constantly. So assuming that Jesus was able to get his good eight hours of sleep per night, you can count on Jesus talking, teaching, preaching and yes, chatting, with his disciples and extended family and followers a good ten hours out of every day. The Gospels are the coalesced summations and high points of his sayings and his actions that are selected by each author to be a “cram course in the essentials of Jesus.” This is why, for example, the Transfiguration, one of the major events in the life of Jesus is included in all three of the synoptic Gospels, because each of those Gospel authors felt that was “essential teaching.” St. John, by not including it, is not laboratory evidence that he wasn’t paying attention, or didn’t think it was important, or that there were “3 votes out of 4 that the Transfiguration happened,” but rather, St. John through his un-martyred long lived perspective included other “essentials” that would have been lost forever had he not, out of the wealth of discussion and events that took place during Jesus’ ministry. So a statistical, laboratory, numeric approach to the sayings and actions of Jesus is totally bogus and out of context. You can be sure that if an author records Jesus using the “Son of Man” title, for example once, he undoubtedly used that title a hundred times in the course of his total conversation with the Apostles and disciples. So it is ridiculous to try to apply a statistical or other numeric formula to words, speech, and events in the Gospels, “title classification” as Benedict calls it on p. 323. All one is really doing is evaluating the teaching and narrative style of that Gospel author as he condenses the total experience of what Jesus said and did. No one should have any doubt that Jesus said exactly what the Gospel authors recorded. Like someone who has heard their favorite professor lecture and say the same thing thirty times during a semester, though, the Gospel authors will not repeat material just for the purpose of repeating it. In their summary they may also emphasize certain speech that now becomes significant during their “remembering” of the sum total of implications of something Jesus said or did.

As an aside, in this spirit of clearing up mysterious context, let’s look for a moment on page 326, where Benedict mentions “the first beast, a lion with the wings of an eagle, has its wings plucked out” from the vision in the Book of Daniel. The lion is then lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man and is given a man’s heart. Benedict, like most, interprets the lion to represent a dominant secular power, and how in the future it can be humanized and receive a human face, when the Son of Man returns. It is a bit of an aside, but I’d like to clarify what the winged lion actually represents, because people today, like those of yesterday, are obsessed with apocalyptic interpretations and lose all objectivity and accuracy as a result.

At the time of Daniel the fiercest animal that existed in their environment was the lion. The Israelis did not have the Indian tiger, or the Egyptian crocodile, or the African elephant or rhinoceros as the day to day “fiercest animal” to watch for, respect, and fear; they had the lion. Remember that however fierce a lion may be, it did not tend to walk through villages nor seek out people (their flocks perhaps, but not the people) and a lion can be escaped from by getting in the midst of settlement. A winged lion represented to the people of the day the greatest danger that cannot be escaped! With “wings” a lion can pursue a man through the air, into his very home or fortress. This was why the Assyrians had a winged lion as one of their motifs of power. It’s not because the winged lion is some sort of symbol of an abstract concept of good and evil, bestial or civilized. The Assyrians and others viewed the winged lion as the strongest power that cannot be evaded or stopped. This was why in the vision; the wings of the lion are removed. It shows that danger can be bound; it can go back to being a “lion” through the removal of the wings. The vision goes further because it now has the lion stand upright, and receive a human heart. This is what happens when the Son of Man is present, and I don’t want to digress too much by going into a full explanation of the vision of Daniel in this post, as I could. I will just add one other thing,, since I know those who have been tempted by 20th century “new age” so much. The winged lion is not a prediction about a Leo astrology sign billionaire who has his own plane in the time of global warming ha ha. Seriously, it is amazing how many people read the Bible and think it’s talking about them and their secular world, just like the Carly Simon song on the same subject, I guess. That is why I wanted to take this opportunity to explain what the authors, visionaries, and real life participants of the Bible meant and intended about the “winged lion,” not the overly psychological and revisionist projections based on cultural and egocentric urges and temptations that so many indulge in during the past century.

You can now read the rest of the chapter, where Benedict discusses “The Son” and “I Am” with less confusion and more context, understanding what I’ve explained about the importance of “identity” (who one’s father is and what he does) and “title” (what one’s job description is.) Without this context, so many people wallow in the “mystery” of Jesus’ identity and how he states it rather than recognizing the all encompassing nature of his mission, which he deliberately avoided pigeonholing. Jesus did not want to confuse anyone or be mysterious, which is why he often quoted biblical prophesies in connection to who he is. That way he could provide a framework and let the listener draw the conclusions, but without being forced to “select” only one title, one prophecy, one mission, one “job description.” In the section “The Son” Benedict discusses the political and theological implications to the Jews and early Christians of this identity and implied title. Again, as a scholar on his own search, Benedict does look for a lot of the ties and interconnections in the cultural, historical, and theological milieu of the times. I feel he really gets back in gear on p. 340 when he writes, “Only the Son truly ‘knows’ the Father. Knowing always involves some sort of equality” and then goes on to discuss the synchronization of the Father with the Son. This is his long round about way of illuminating the observation I made at the beginning, which is during those times, identity was mostly informed by who one’s father was. Here there is an incredible numinosity when the identity of the Son is revealed through the identity of the Father as God.

The next section, “I Am” can therefore be more easily understood as Jesus’ “title,” his “job description.” Just as his identity as Son is informed by who is his Father, his “I am sayings,” as Benedict calls them, are really the clearest that Jesus comes to accepting a title. See, this is where what I commented about the difference in priorities of reporting between the Synoptic authors and St. John is key, because St. John is the one who mostly records the “I Am” sayings. St. John, being the Apostle Jesus loved, and having a long life, not cut short by martyrdom, to reflect and remember, would not surprisingly be able to remember and highlight those subtle “I Am” sayings and understand them as being Jesus’ job description, his title. Benedict references the “I Am” sayings to the Old Testament and the historic competition between God and the “other gods” and idols of the region. Thus Benedict focuses, understandably, on the “I Am” as reinforcement of Jesus’ identity as oneness with God, and the oneness of God. He points out, correctly, that the “I Am” sayings illuminate his identity and origin. Benedict does get to the point of the “I Am” saying being Jesus’ “job description” (though not with the emphasis I’ve placed on it) when he writes on p. 354:

And so we now realize what ultimately lies behind all the Johannine images: Jesus gives us “life” because he gives us God. He can give God because he himself is one with God, because he is the Son. He himself is the gift-he is “life.” For precisely this reason, his whole being consists in communicating, in “pro-existence.” This is exactly what we see in the Cross, which is his true exaltation.

This great quotation is the second to the last page of the book, and is a fine summation of what could have been a confusing and complicated chapter, and indeed, is a fine summation of this first book of the two planned. I would invite you to continue to work with the “job description” analogy when you read this and ponder it, because Benedict hits it squarely with his phrase “pro-existence.” The purpose, the “job” of Jesus Christ in his oneness with God is to be the champion of life and existence. God is life, and Jesus Christ existed to, as Benedict wrote earlier, “bring us God,” to introduce humanity to God, whose job description is “pro-existence” and “life.” No one remembers or cares how many benches Jesus crafted. Jesus is everything about communicating pro-existence. Jesus wants people to live and thrive, and he also wants them to be saved and have eternal life. But he himself who is one with God teaches to fear God, in other words, to fear the loss of God, because if one rejects and loses God, that is not pro-existence because one then loses both body and soul. Jesus really gave two very direct stern warnings during his public ministry. He warned that people should neither lead children to sin, and to not forget that God is first, as he can destroy not only one’s life but also banish the unrepentant sinner’s soul to hell. Jesus is advocating for life, for eternity of existence, He does not do this through repeated fire and brimstone preaching, because that was not the need, the knowledge of God and the personal experience of “his face” was what was needed. Though make no mistake that was then. As St. John records in the Book of Revelations, all too many do choose the other way, the anti-existence, as I work with the great phrase that Benedict provides in “pro-existence.” I think that Benedict did a wonderful job of sharing his personal search for the face of the Lord in “Jesus of Nazareth,” to everyone’s benefit. The face of the Lord, the face of God, is the face of someone who very much wants every soul to succeed, to live and to thrive, and whose only sadness are those who choose their own destruction. Benedict appropriately closes with mention of Peter and his words:

In the Nicene Creed, the Church joins Peter in confessing to Jesus ever anew: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16).

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 9

Chapter 9: “Two Milestones on Jesus’ Way: Peter’s Confession and the Transfiguration”

I really enjoyed this chapter of Pope Benedict’s book. Yes, I enjoy all of the chapters, but I always especially like reading what people think about St. Peter. He was such an incredible man – there’s never been one like him – yet he was very, very humble, and sometimes it is difficult for people reading the scriptures to recognize his greatness, because he certainly did not showboat it in the Gospels, Acts, or his two Letters (Epistles.)

The first half of the chapter discusses the various times and ways that St. Peter recognizes the true and full identity of Jesus. I think Benedict describes these wonderfully. I’d like to expand on two points that for some reason just about everyone misses, perhaps because they are so plain and simple. Pope Benedict’s book structure relies quite a bit on overly scholarly work by others, which he then puts in perspective, explaining, agreeing with, or rebuking, depending on what is appropriate. This means that he dives into the more symbolic and complex, and sometimes skips over explaining a few basic things and exploring them for the edification of the general reader who is trying to put it all together and get inside the minds of Jesus and the Apostles, to deepen their faith and understanding. In one example Benedict says, “Scholarship overplays its hand with such reconstructions” (p. 303,) and while he is referring to one scholar’s work, I’d comment that everyone is doing this overplaying to some degree. So here are a few really obvious things about St. Peter that are remarkably profound to his mission as given to him by Jesus Christ.

Benedict describes, delightfully, the intertwining of events, locations, and words of St. Peter to Jesus. He only touches on Jesus’ “nickname” for St. Peter of Cephas, the rock. That is understandable because Benedict’s purpose is to discuss the nature of Jesus, as seen through St. Peter’s “eyes of recognition” (my words.) But there’s some really cool insight that is missed in not looking more at the deliberate implications of Jesus selecting Cephas as the nickname for St. Peter. Benedict points out that there is a tradition where this scene took place “where a wall of rock overhangs the waters of the Jordan and thus powerfully illustrates Jesus’ words about Peter as the rock” (p. 290.) And that is great, but the more important “interior location” of the event is from Jesus’ perspective as a carpenter. Jesus is by trade a carpenter in a time when both stones and wood were used to construct houses. Stones or rock were used for foundations and for wells, boundary markers, livestock pens, and so forth. Stones indicate where a decision to build has been made. Stones are removed from fields that are to be tilled, and placed where there will be a permanent structure. Jesus is telling St. Peter, Cephas, that not only will people literally one day see him as the spiritual rock upon which the Church is built, through the Apostolic and Papal lineage, but also that literally, St. Peter will choose where the foundation of the Church will be built.

Now much focus has been placed upon the Biblical passage “A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner” (Isaiah 28, later quoted by both Jesus and St. Peter) because that cornerstone refers to Jesus Christ. However, Jesus gives St. Peter the title Cephas, the rock, because he is also literally charging him with establishment of the physical presence and heart of the Church location in time and space on earth. If St. Peter had decided to go to some city in Africa, let’s say, and was martyred there, that would have been the Catholic Church’s “Rome,” The Vatican. If he had hopped a ship to England and gone to London to preach and convert, and was martyred there, London would have been the Catholic Church’s “Vatican.” But he went to Rome, the center of the world’s empire at that time, and that was where the rock of the Church was placed, with Christ as the cornerstone and St. Peter building the stones of foundation. Jesus literally gave St. Peter the nickname, the power, and the title to choose the literal location of the Holy See of the Church. If St. Peter had seen fit to go in a different direction perhaps we’d be arguing about doing the old rite Senegalese or Urdu mass! But it was really both St. Peter’s choice, and the logic of destiny, that he and St. Paul both converged on Rome, the center of the conquered world, and conquer and convert it for Christ.

We know that St. Peter was fully aware of what he had been charged with, though this may come as a surprise to some, because his words of acknowledgement are subtle and humble and easily missed. Read 1 St. Peter 2:4-10:

Draw near to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Hence Scriptures says, “Behold I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, chosen, precious; and he who believes in it shall not be put to shame.” For you, therefore, who believe, is this honor; but to those who do not believe, “A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner,” and “A stumbling-stone and a rock of scandal,” to those who stumble at the word, and who do not believe. For this also they are destined. You, however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people; that you may proclaim the perfections of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Is this not beautiful? Many people glide over the writings of St. Peter because they are sparse and humble. Some when they read this passage think that it is only a restatement of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone and their brains kind of turn off or skip ahead in the reading. But look carefully. St. Peter speaks of Jesus as the “living stone” and also the cornerstone “in Sion.” However, St. Peter immediately says, “Be yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” St. Peter wasn’t talking about a theoretical building offer symbolic sacrifices, because he uses the words “a holy priesthood.” He understands full well that he is to found and exhort the building of the literal Church. He underscores this again after the quotation about the rejected cornerstone being Jesus and “you, however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood…” Again by using the word “priesthood” he is speaking of the establishment of the literal priesthood in literal Churches. He is writing this in Rome (which he calls Babylon ha ha) in 63 AD, shortly before his martyrdom. So thirty some years have passed since Jesus Christ died and rose again, and St. Peter has served as the Bishop of Rome – the first Pope – and is now preparing for martyrdom. As such he is spelling out that he has placed the stones of the foundation of the priesthood and the Church literal in Rome, and in the hands of all believers for their own locales.

I sometimes wonder if non-Catholic versions of the First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle were written in lemon juice as “spy ink” and had to be heated over a candle to be read, as people doubt the first hand Apostolic origin and physical placement of the Catholic Church directly from Jesus Christ to St. Peter. No one can read this passage and misunderstand that St. Peter understood full well what Jesus intended for him to do as Cephas.

With this in mind, I suggest reading his full Epistle 1 and especially savor what he wrote in 5:1-11. Compare it to what you have read from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and recognize that it is the first papal letter to the flock. It is wonderful that it is in everyone’s hands to see!

The second part of the chapter discusses the Transfiguration, where Sts. Peter, John, and James witness Jesus Christ in his body glorified, in discussion with Moses and Elijah. Benedict spends some time on two points to which I’d like to add some perspective and illumination. The first is that Benedict attributes St. Peter’s offer to make three tents, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah as kind of an ecstasy and highly symbolic (speculating a theorized timing connection to the Feast of the Tabernacles.) While St. Peter was in a wondrous ecstasy of amazement, he was not babbling or being symbolic. Think about it. The Apostles have come to understand who Jesus really is, and now he appears glorified and with Moses and Elijah. Jesus and the Apostles have had many followers, but also their lives have been in constant danger, and Jesus has even had to flee from his own hometown. So St. Peter quite literally believed that Moses and Elijah were appearing to stay and help Jesus. It’s actually a remarkable example of the depth of his faith and belief that he didn’t assume this was a vision, but recognized their physical presence and believed with joy that they would reappear and stay in order to help and protect Jesus. As you know, St. Peter and the others did not want to believe that Jesus would be persecuted and die. They knew who he truly was, and had growing comprehension of the face of God through Jesus, and so this seemed like “the next step,” a time to be elated and welcome Moses and Elijah to the fray, to the mission. Later it is explained that the works of St. John the Baptist were the fulfillment of the “return of Elijah,” but at that moment, St. Peter was certainly not being symbolic or addled, but he was showing as clear and as concrete an action-oriented faith as anyone could.

There is also an interesting synchronicity and foretelling by St. Peter here, because who would become the tent makers? St. Peter would, as the rock, and St. Paul, literally a tent maker, would, as they do in fact literally make the tents of the Church for everyone.

The second point on this part of the chapter that I want to make is about the speculation that the Transfiguration is related to the Jewish calendar by occurring during the Feast of Tabernacles. While there is all sorts of interesting correlations it simply is not so. One needs only to read the Gospel of St. John. Because St. John does not record the Transfiguration people do not read the part of his gospel that corresponds to the Transfiguration event. That’s an oversight because while he does not discuss the Transfiguration he does relate that Jesus so wished to attend the Feast of the Tabernacles that he goes in secret. This is related in John 7:1-15 and you can read what occurs. I’ll cite two lines (10): But as soon as his brethren had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but as it were privately, and (14) When, however, the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began to speak. Jesus did not miss the major feasts of the Jewish calendar whenever possible. So going up the mountain to pray, and then undergo the Transfiguration, would not have taken place during Jewish holy days of obligation or feast days. Even if Jesus was establishing the New Covenant in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and law, he participated in feasts when he could in order to preach.

Quick lesson about one of Jesus' miracles

Mark 9:14-28 Now when Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I command thee, go out of him and enter him no more." And crying out and violently convulsing him, it went out of him, and he became like one dead, so that many said, "He is dead." But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him and he stood up.
And when he had come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, "Why could not we cast it out?" And he said to them, "This kind can be cast out in no way except by prayer and fasting."

***
Notice that Jesus did not have to postpone the curing of the man's son in order to go and pray and fast. The purpose of this statement is to show that Jesus IS the embodiment of prayer and fasting. He has "fasted" (emptied himself) and "prayed" (filled himself) with the Holy Spirit, so he already in the state of grace, given by God, of being able to cure even those circumstances that requires such purity. He is explaining to the disciples that they too will be able to do this same type of miracle, when they too have sufficiently emptied themselves (become poor of spirit) in order to fill themselves with the healing power of the Holy Spirit. This is the explanation of this miracle, which has puzzled some who have read it.

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 8

Chapter 8 "The Principal Images of John's Gospel"

When I first received my copy of Pope Benedict's book this was the first chapter that I flipped to and read. The reason is that I have a keen interest and impatience in those who have spread doubt about the validity and Apostolic origin of St. John's Gospel, and I wanted to see how Benedict dealt with this. I was very pleased with how he did, though of course he is more diplomatic and charitable than I would have been! Here are some of my thoughts about that section of the chapter, and about the manufactured controversy in general.

Those who wonder "if St. John really wrote the Gospel, or Revelations" are usually zooming in on the more intimate, numinous, and discoursing tone of the Gospel of St. John compared to the writings of the other Gospels (though they too have been criticized as being written with "too high" a level of literary skill for "simple" people such as the disciples and Apostles.) Pope Benedict thoroughly refutes these prejudices, though he doesn't go into some of the psychological reasons why critics sometimes think like this (nor should he) however I will. I think one reason is obvious though subtle, which is that people have trouble imagining that the Gospels are all distillations of days and nights of verbal discourse between Jesus and the Apostles and disciples. The miracles, conversations, and preaching that are recorded are obviously the key parts of Jesus' ministry, but an Apostle who is "beloved" by Jesus, as was St. John, would have many conversations and images of his time with Jesus to draw upon when writing, thus his Gospel is more discoursing in nature and tone. Secondly, remember that after Jesus died and resurrected, St. John was given by Jesus the responsibility for caring for his mother Mary. St. John lived many years after Jesus, and certainly Mary and St. John did not have vows of silence (being ironic here) so like with Jesus, John and Mary would have had many conversations to expand on insights and "remember" what Jesus said and did. Benedict does a wonderful job of discussing the implications of St. John's continual use of the word "remember." It is widely understood that similarly St. Luke in his Gospel also obtained insight, information, and remembrance from Mary (for example, the words of her Canticle.)

There's a third reason that I believe some critics criticize or question St. John's authorship or the authenticity of his first hand remembrances. That is there is fear of what he knew and what he wrote about, which culminates in the Book of Revelation, known also as the Apocalypse. I think that some intellectuals who bury themselves in the historic methodology do so to unconsciously mitigate the total and absolute judgement that will occur at the end of times. I think there is a tendency to "fear" what St. John knew and saw. So there is a temptation to view what he wrote as being "symbolic." Well, a symbol did not have care of the Blessed Virgin Mary committed to him by Jesus. And they would not have had "symbolic" conversations and remembering. And later in Revelations, St. John did not see cartoon characters and "symbols" as the angels walked him through understanding of terrifying absolute judgement and the return of Jesus with a "not symbolic" sword coming from his mouth. I think there is this temptation to make being loved by Jesus, learning from him the true nature of the Kingdom of God, and seeing the Apocalypse "safer" and "symbolic" by picking apart and casting doubt. Benedict, again, does a great job of quoting some of these who attempt to dilute St. John's contribution and refuting them, without examining their motivations. I offer my insight regarding motivations because I think that casting a keen eye on the foibles and temptations, albeit unconscious, of scholars strengthens the faith and understanding of those who might be exposed to their incomplete speculations.

Two favorite quotes from this part of the chapter:

How does it strengthen faith if it presents itself as a historical testimony - and does so quite emphatically - but then does not report history? I think that we are dealing here with a false concept of the historical, as well as with a false concept of faith and of the Paraclete. A faith that discards history in the manner really turns into "Gnosticism." It leaves flesh, incarnation - just what history is - behind (p. 228.)

What the Gospel is really claiming is that it has correctly rendered the substance of the discourses, of Jesus' self-attestation in the great Jerusalem disputes, so that the readers really do encounter the decisive content of this message and, therein, the authentic figure of Jesus (p. 229.)

The rest of the chapter discusses the principle images of Christ that appear in the Gospel of St. John. The images are Water, Vine and Wine, Bread, and Shepherd, spending 47 pages on those subjects. They are a masterful, substantive yet approachable, beautiful and insightful read. While Benedict calls these "images" they are all manifestations of genuine physical words, actions, miracles and deeds performed by Christ. For example, Water refers to both the numinous, cultural, and spiritual meaning of water, but also the literal water that gushed from Christ's side as he was pierced by the lance. This section needs a good thorough read, more than one actually, and I plan to reread it this weekend. Another delightful part of this section of the chapter is that you hear Benedict's actual voice and expression of his personal faith, as you read what he has written, particularly in the section The Shepherd. A very fine chapter throughout!!

Nathanael, true and without guile

I'm very excited at the new vigor that I sense among Catholics, both cradle Catholics and those who have recently "crossed the Tiber" to rediscover Jesus and the early Church, through both Bible reading and reading the works of the Early Church Fathers. Not only are people more fully discovering Jesus Christ, they are also more fully knowing their own selves.

Nowadays so many people work on changing their images, or adopting other personalities or traits, thinking that they need to constantly "re-invent" themselves. Sometimes when I encounter a person I knew I feel I should ask them, "And, who are you now?" instead of "How are you?!" I'd like to remind people that they are their own unique selves, and there's a great dialogue in St. John that illustrates this.

John 1:47-49. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, "Behold, a true Israelite in whom there is no guile! Nathanael said to him, "Whence knowest thou me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." Nathanael answered him and said, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art King of Israel."

Now, while many study the calling of Nathanael as a lesson in the all knowing nature of Jesus (his far sight) and in Nathanael's faith (his recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, King of Israel) there is also another insight that can be gleaned, that is almost too simple to see. Notice what Jesus did not say. He did not say, "I saw you studying the Torah and you sure are smart, so be an Apostle," "I saw you shouting everyone else down in a debate so I knew you'd have the right stuff to be an Apostle," "I saw you give a lot of alms so you have the charity to be an Apostle," or "I saw you are a great conversationalist, and so you'll have the gift of gab to be an Apostle!"

Jesus saw Nathanael simply sitting under a tree. Jesus of course was also able to see into Nathanael's heart. Jesus was able to see that Nathanael was "true" and with "no guile," in other words, comfortable in his own skin, his own authentic self, and not striking a pose in order to be someone that he is not. So when you read this part of the Gospel of St. John, remember that real quality is not in constant re-inventing and being a poseur, but in being one's own true self, without guile. Nathanael did not even know he was at an interview to be an Apostle!

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 7

The chapter "The Message of the Parables" has a first half that is exploring the meaning of "parables" and the second half examines three specific parables from St. Luke. It is an important chapter, but it is important to remember that Pope Benedict wrote in his forward that this book is "solely an expression of my personal search 'for the face of the Lord.'" The reason I remind readers of this quote before discussing this chapter is that the Pope is rightly concerned with scholarly methodologies that are in favor during various times, some of them quite harmful because they are misleading due to insufficient context of faith or understanding of the Old Testament context of Jesus' actions. However this means that Benedict, in his own search, is not structuring this chapter to just be plain spoken interpretations of the parables. He goes into interesting analysis of what is an allegory and what is a parable, and all the "cousins" (my word for it) of stories that people tell: "riddle, similitude, fable, proverb, apocalyptic revelation, riddle, symbol, pseudonym, fictitious person, example (model), theme, argument, apology, refutation, jest..." He goes through all this analysis of what "literary type" and "genre" the parables of Jesus falls into because that's what so many scholars dispute over in their analytical approach to comprehending the words of Jesus. Any plain spoken non scholarly person (like all of the people who gathered to listened to Jesus at the time he spoke) can tell you the problem with that... Jesus spoke the way he did in order to, as Benedict later writes in this chapter:

By means of parable he brings something distant within their reach so that, using the parable as a bridge, they can arrive at what was previously unknown (page 192.)

This is one of the most of many illuminating statements in Benedict's book. I think that if those who are reading "Jesus of Nazareth" and also deepening their understanding of the parables and other sayings of Jesus, to view each parable as this bridge is immensely illuminating.

I am reminded of a bold friend of mine, who is very feisty in personality in both raising her children to adulthood as a single parent, creating and running several of her own businesses, being a landlord, and even packing a truck and driving cross country with it many times, in bad weather and road conditions. Not much scares her until we came to a tourist site outside of Taos, which is a bridge over the Rio Grande gorge. People would park their cars and walk out onto the bridge to look into the gorge and let me tell you, brothers and sisters, it's a view that is dramatic and a long way down. She would not come out onto that bridge to look. She'd drive over it in a truck without a second thought, but she could not on foot come onto the bridge and look, being very squeamish about heights. Jesus' parables are like that. They are all bridges to what is unknown. Some of them are easy boardwalk foot paths a few feet off of the ground, showing close up sights that one would not otherwise see. But for some people, certain parables are terrifying in the full potential of what they reveal, like that bridge over the Rio Grande for my friend. While others of us were thrilled to see a sight (for free) that is of an amazing river and canyon, she stuck close to the car and like some of the disciples told Jesus "this is hard to hear." Benedict wrote a great first half explanation to this chapter, and the crowning glory of the chapter is this analogy that he uses about the bridge. But if I were writing a prayer book or book of explanation of the parables of Jesus, I'd use that bridge analogy throughout and skip over all the scholarly methodology disputes. However, this was not the purpose of Benedict's book, because he is "putting straight" (my words) the problems with many of the "scholarly" methodologies and so he gives them a lot of "shelf space" in this book, and this chapter.

So I wanted to point out for you the money quote, the great summarizing statement, the flash of insight of this chapter, which is the bridge statement on page 192, that I highlighted.

Benedict then analyzes three parables from Luke: The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son, and The Rich Man and Lazarus. His analysis and illumination of the first two parables, The Good Samaritan and The Prodigal Son, are wonderful. He approaches them full of cultural and faith context, and gives them such a fine treatment that indeed you feel that you have gone "across that parable bridge" along with him and now understand the "previously unknown" that Jesus presents in these parables. I agree with him wholeheartedly and find that he takes a full yet correctly directed view of the people and messages in this parable.

I was disappointed, however, although not surprised, that Benedict is not able to do the same with his discussion of the third parable, The Rich Man and Lazarus. He starts out strong in context, but then loses the path over the bridge by trailing off into the side trails of excessive symbolism. And I understand why, as I've often preached this parable (and readers will see that I've dealt with it in detail previously in this blog) and found that this is the parable bridge that is for many people, the one "hard to hear," the "scary view deep into the Rio Grande gorge right under one's feet." When you read this part of the chapter, his treatment of this parable, you'll see immediately what I mean. Now, I'm not saying the Pope is afraid of the bridge that this parable reveals, far from it. But he is part of the overall society that pulls back from speaking some of the plain truth harshness about the reality of heaven and hell that Jesus had to preach. The Pope is a loving man and far from being a "rottweiler " he pulls back from "hurting" people by really explaining the deep, dangerous, and dizzying view that is seen on that parable bridge. That is exactly what makes the parable all the more important to understand, and not to try to mitigate and dilute its message by using touchy feely symbolism. It's important to realize this: Whenever Jesus speaks of heaven and hell, of salvation or of being lost, he is not using fictional symbolism. If he says that Lazarus is in the arms of Abraham, he means that Lazarus is in the arms of Abraham. It's fine to read all sorts of meaning into the use of the words "arms" by looking at other times that arms indicate the presence of God, but not to then conclude that the actual holding of Lazarus by Abraham is an analogy. And I was a little shocked that the Pope too quickly offers the "in case the reader is too uncomfortable with this message" lifeline that maybe Jesus was speaking of purgatory (Protestant friends ought to agree with this gleefully, since they are always pointing out that purgatory is not mentioned by name in the Bible.) I flat out disagree with Benedict's interpretation of this parable from page 215-216. He's not a hell and brimstone kind of guy, our Pope Benedict, but he needs to be more open to when Jesus was, through need, when needed, a hell and brimstone kind of preacher. If you don't look at that bridge and see it for what it is, especially if the message is "hard," then one is almost guaranteed to fall, because one avoids the warning of an unpleasant and very real consequence.

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 6

This chapter "The Disciples" describes the significance of the structure and number of Apostles and disciples selected by Jesus, and how they correlate to his intention of world wide for all peoples mission. Pope Benedict does a very good job and this is a worthy chapter without getting too deep into distracting detail.

He describes the symbolic and theological significance of the numbers 12, 70, and 72 without going too far into the temptation of numerology and giving numbers a power that they simply do not have. Whenever I read anyone write about the symbolism of numbers I hold my breath and worry about the author veering into that all too familiar ditch - yes, even the Pope! But Pope Benedict did not disappoint; he took the symbolism exactly as far as they should go and no farther.

First, I will say a few things that I wish Benedict had touched upon in this chapter. There are other social implications for Jesus' selection of twelve Apostles and seventy two. The reasons are not just symbolic and or based on Jewish law and lore. Here are some additional thoughts. This was the very beginning of the Church and evangelization of the New Covenant. Jesus knew there would be extreme hardship and persecution, and accurately foretold all of this to the Apostles and disciples. He knew that they would have to work together in at least pairs, and in fact, sent out the disciples in pairs to evangelize. In those days, both humans and God spoke in terms of "the four corners" of the earth in order to designate a worldwide mission. That also happens to be the geography of the Mediterranean region in order to access Europe, Asia, and Africa. With Peter designated to establish the Rock of the Church wherever he placed his bishop's hat, Jesus was thinking in terms of 2-3 Apostles for each "corner" of the earth. James, the most traditionally "Jewish" of the Apostles, stayed in Jerusalem as the bishop, while the other Apostles were free to come and go in their evangelization. With that simple logic of logistics, the number twelve makes perfect practical sense for the number of Apostles. There is nothing wrong with understanding the numeric significance of the number twelve in Jewish scriptures and lore unless one starts to think that Jesus was conducting numerology. He was not; Jesus was selecting the right quantity of Apostle for the job and for the times. Jesus certainly did not mind the symbolism of, for example, the twelve tribes of Israel, but he'd never chose the number twelve just for that reason. If he thought that fifteen Apostles were needed to succeed, would he pick twelve just for the symbolism? No, of course not. So bear in mind that while everything Pope Benedict writes is insightful and true, it's never more important than Jesus' total understanding of God's plan and who/how many are needed to make this a practical reality. Jesus was the inadvertent author of the first managerial self help book in a way... because one could see the value of selecting the right people for the right jobs.

This is even more clear if you think about the disciples and their structure. Again, Pope Benedict writes insightful and true analysis of their numbers, and speculation about the derivation of lore about this number. And he correctly writes about the role of women in support of the disciples. But he does not write about the practical reasons for this number and structure, perhaps because he is focusing on Biblical symbolism rather than the sociology of these earliest Christians, and how Jesus would understand the needs of the community very clearly. The Apostles can be thought of as the bishops. But the disciples should be thought of the prototype laity. Yes, you didn't misread - I did say the disciples as prototype laity. The disciples were the models of the priesthood, but they were also the model for the laity in giving birth to this new Church. Here's why. The way conversion took place in this birth of the Church was person by person, individual by individual. But with each individual came a family unit. St Paul would write about this vital importance of the family. Each disciple was a "father" not just in a priestly sense, but in the sense that at that time, each disciple was a "father" of a family unit, who would also inevitably convert with him. It was really seventy-two "families" not seventy-two solo disciples who evangelized and established the early newly born Church. The disciple families initiated the now 2000 year old model of a Catholic Church based on the traditional family and their lay work sustained the early Church. Remember, the Apostles went back to fishing when they had to make a living and support the Church, and St Paul made tents to support himself and the early community as he traveled and evangelized.

Today everyone is so power and goal oriented that it's an inevitable error to think about those first days of the Church through the lens of "power." In other words, people think that Jesus selected seventy two for either a numeric, numinous power reason based on luck and lore, or that he selected seventy two "priests" in order to get busy and set up that big bad old bureaucratic Church power structure. No indeed... what Jesus was really doing was appointing seventy two family support structures each with a priest as an anchor. Notice that the Bible, for example in Acts, does not record great deeds of the disciples... and that is just fine, because their "deed" was to "be" the Church. The disciples were nameless (in a Biblical and historic sense) fathers who led the first Christian families - fathers as parents and fathers as priests. The numerical significance of seventy two is really just as there are four corners of the earth, there are "eighteen" disciples for each of those corners. That's about the size of a typical village in that time - eighteen extended families. Remember, though, that many thousands "heard" and "converted" wherever Jesus went and they too became part of the early Church family, through their descendents.

Now, just because the Apostles and disciples were married does not mean that priests should be married, because remember, the model of the priesthood, the first priest, is Jesus who is dedicated to God alone. But this is why deacons are able to be married and have families, and is one of the reasons that there is a renewal (thank God for prayers for vocations) among the deaconate. It's not just the challenges of the dwindled numbers of priestly vocations that fuels the call for deacons. It's a rediscovering of the original models of the seventy two disciples, with their families, who were both priestly and laity models for the Church in its first born days. In the early days disciples had to be priests and/or deacons and/or heads of lay families, because that was simply the reality of the people Jesus met and called. But very quickly the truth of the Church sorted itself out into the understanding that priests followed the example of the first priest, Christ, and that deacons followed the examples of the disciples. That is why there were six fold as many disciples as Apostles, and why they were for the most part unmentioned by name except in a few places in the Gospel, because they were the fabric of the Church, both as early "fathers" in a priest or deacon vocation, and as "fathers" of the Catholic community at large.

I hope this additional context setting was helpful to your reading of Pope Benedict's book, and also to your contemplation of the "why's" and the "how's" of development of this beautiful Catholic Church.

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 5

What a brilliant chapter! I just leafed through this chapter again, and am continually impressed with how this chapter is a gem of understanding. Those of you who have not read Pope Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" book yet, and if you know you are the type to hop around in books, or not finish them, you would have great value by reading Chapter 5 first.

The first part of Chapter 5, while it's not a primer on how to pray, might as well be, because Benedict practically reads the mind of Jesus in using his words and actions to establish the most fruitful means to pray. He points out something I've mentioned a number of times, that Jesus prayed to God not only for his own dialogue with God, but to be the ultimate role model and inflame the desire to pray as intensely in his disciples who observed him. If you are having a dry spell at praying, or are just getting back into prayer, the first section of this chapter is just for you.

Then Benedict does a line by line examination of the "Our Father," the prayer that Jesus taught. Here Benedict helps the reader to "meet" and "understand" God, just as Jesus did. Benedict uses the teachings of Jesus to illuminate the personality of God, and to help understand who God is and what is his will.

Because Benedict is, how can I express it best, almost browsing through interaction with Jesus like he was a fellow disciple, listening and striving to understand each of the words and actions of Jesus, this is not a scholarly or erudite toned chapter, and is so accessible to anyone. It is both illuminating and personal, and therefore every enjoyable and valuable.

Great dialogue between Pope and author, and my old thoughts!

Hat tip to Kevin Knight at New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/ for this link:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=153041&eng=y

"Franz Michel Willam, the Theologian the Pope Has Rescued from OblivionAuthor in 1932 of a famous life of Christ, he had been forgotten by everyone. Benedict XVI cites him in "Jesus of Nazareth," and an Austrian scholar explains why. Based on unpublished correspondence between the two:" is the lead article, embedding this article following:

"Ratzinger and the "chaplain" theologian. An unpublished correspondence by Philipp Reisinger The Austrian Franz Michel Willam is today certainly the least-known among the authors cited by Benedict XVI in the preface to his book “Jesus of Nazareth.” Who was he? And why does the pope recall him? Only a few know about the correspondence, kept in the convent of Thalbach in Bregenz, Austria, between the university professor Joseph Ratzinger and Franz Michel Willam, who was 33 years older than him."

This is an exciting read, as it shows the process of fruitful thought and dialogue between two of the great biographers and theologians of the life of Jesus Christ.... yet it is from a different and I'd argue a better time of Christian thought. Read the article and you'll see what I mean, this is before the time when there were "dueling intellectuals" and also "I've got to dig up a fossil of Jesus before I believe" "historics."
*******
Another thing I'd like to point out about this article is the discussion of "simplicity:"

snip
"Willam, who had discovered and brought forth simplicity as the dominant idea in Pope John XXIII, presented in this way • in a letter to Bishop Paulus Rusch – what was for him the central passage in Ratzinger’s article: “The theory of simplicity finds in Joseph Ratzinger the following formulation: there exists the simplicity of comfort, which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness. Renewal is simplicity, not in the sense of a selection or reduction, but rather a simplification in the sense of a becoming-simple, of moving toward that true simplicity which is the mystery of being.”

When I was a freshman in university, in the early 1970's, one of my dorm mates asked me if life was "simple" or "complex." I replied "simple" which surprised her and drove her crazy, since she of course in reflection of those presumptuous times, assumed the answer was "complex." This resulted in a year long informal canvassing by her and others of my friends of their friends and acquaintances of whether they believed life was simple or complex. Nearly everybody replied "complex." When presented with this I'd always reply that they were mistaken, and that life is "simple." This does not mean that one does not find oneself in some very sticky situations indeed, but that does not mean that life is complex. Life is simple and it always has been, but humankind and their thoughts and deeds make it appear to be "complex." The ersatz survey ended as our freshman year concluded and my dorm mate said to me in exasperation, "Life is complex - YOU are simple!"

Hmm. If anything the years continue to show me true. There is God and there is the physical world. There is separation from God and its consequences on human behavior, and there is union with God and it's easing of life's challenges and assurances of being on the path to the Kingdom of God. There is prosperity and there are shortages, of both spiritual and material commodities. There is charity and there is mean spirited withholding. There is a measured span of all mortal beings, and there is God's eternity. Life is simple, for as William references Ratzinger's thought on this, "which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness..." Life is simple (and thus incredibly rich) in its origin, and then the mission of existing in life is very simple precisely because all is not spelled out for one. One has a life span and one has choices, some that one can make for one's self, and some that are made for one by others. Living life and understanding the simple yet profound relationship between humanity and God is the only certainty. Complexity results from humans' efforts to manipulate, to try to "have it all," and to delude themselves that there is a hidden plan, a map, secret lore that gives them all the "answers" and enables one to know and make the "right choices." Complexity is in human's minds, it is not the nature of life. The simplicity of life is it's beauty and it's power, and to be simple does not mean it is not profound and deep.

Why young Jesus had to learn the Torah

Some people have wondered why, if Jesus was the Son of God, he had to study the Torah and basically, to put it in modern terms, “learn the scriptures.” People figure that if Jesus was God, then he would “already know everything” including what was in the “Bible.” I’ve already written in a previous post explaining that Jesus knew who he was and communicated with God the Father from the moment he was born. I go through that whole explanation in order to debunk heretical thoughts that Jesus “did not know who he was,” and to show the reader how Jesus was in continual internal (through prayer and thought) communication with God the Father. Now to answer this question, which might be paraphrased as to be “Why did Jesus go through a human learning period?” Notice how as soon as I paraphrase this question, the answer is a little bit obvious and makes the asking even a bit silly. If Jesus Christ was going to be born, live, and ultimately die as a human, of course he had to learn how to talk, take care of himself, and learn facts about life in the native language. These are all human brain development functions that of course he would share with all other humans. The exceptions are that he had adult knowledge and thoughts even as a baby (because of his continual communion with God) and the report in the Quran, but not verified in the Bible, that he actually could speak at birth. It is quite likely that he could speak as a baby because continual communion with God would give him the complexity of thought capability to talk, as soon as his physical ability to talk would support speech. So Jesus had some clear mental and emotional advantages from being in communion with God the Father from birth, and he had total self knowledge.

As part of his total understanding of whom he really was, and who God the Father was, of course he would have complete understanding of the nature of the universe. However, just because he knew the “why” and “how” of everything does not mean that his brain would be “preloaded” with every man made fact. I’ll use two analogies to help with this. God is the possessor of all knowledge of reality, being both the creator of reality and the all pervasive source of energy of reality. So you could think of God as creating the ultimate computer, and each human being is running his or her own program of life on that computer. (I’m not saying this is how it is in reality, but I’m using a geeky analogy to help with understanding.) So Jesus would be born with a total understanding of how that computer was built, and how it operated (and what the outcome would be of every program ever run.) Being a human and choosing to live as a human does not mean that Jesus is watching every single program that every human is running at a given time. He could if he wanted to (witness in the Bible how he knew the sins of the woman at the well even before he met her) but he did not live that way day by day. He allowed himself to be human. So he would have to learn, for example the Torah, in order to see what programs mankind was running. He would have to see what parts of God’s word the authors of the Old Testament had recorded and learn how they were expressed, just as anyone else did. The difference is that he would recognize in those words which programs those authors had “written” in their conversation with God (for example, Moses) or through their inspiration by the Holy Spirit and he alone would be able to verify that they were true and accurate. The mindset would be something like this. Jesus would read a section of scripture and think, “Ah yes, I remember when that happened. How nice that this was preserved in writing the way it was. So, this is the wording that David used in this psalm? How beautiful and true.” He would also have thoughts that would not translate to human thoughts of how the part of scripture he was reading fit into God’s plan. That is because God’s plan is very visual, in a way, because it is so infinite and all comprehensive. Jesus would be able to read a psalm of David’s, for example, and not only remember when David wrote it, and all the events around it, but he’d also know its implications throughout human history. He would know the “why” of that psalm, not only in the past, but in his current time, and also in the future. To use our example again, Jesus would understand in totality any life program that any human would ever run that touched on the theology of that psalm. That is what a glimpse into Jesus’ mind would have been like. So for him, learning the Old Testament would be him learning what language and programs humans had chosen under God’s guidance to operate on the “Word of God computer.”

The second analogy is that Jesus had to learn his “native language” like any human in order to communicate with others and fulfill his mission as Messiah. But in his case I do not mean Aramaic or Hebrew. While all human babies are born with ears and mouth but not yet language, Jesus was born with ears and mouth but already speaking internally “God’s language.” So Jesus already had a “native language,” and that was the “language” that God speaks. Learning Aramaic or Hebrew would have been, for him, learning a “second language.” He would have to learn what sounds and words people used to express the concept of “*indescribable to humans God concept A*” and “*other indescribable to humans God concept B.*” Because humans cannot think like God or perceive like God, Jesus would have had to learn through Aramaic or Hebrew what humans WERE able to think about and articulate. He would then use the linguistic skills he learned to shape the concepts of God (his true native language) into concepts that humans could hope to understand. This is also a reason why he used analogies and parables so much. He would take a concept that might be very hard to understand (even if it were a completely human based idea) and put it into the language and the cultural formation that would best convey the idea. If he had popped onto earth speaking totally perfect Aramaic or Hebrew, he would not have had the “inside outward” or from “bottom up” understanding of how humans developed in their speech and ability to logic, and most importantly, their limitations. By learning Aramaic “alongside” of the other children of the time, he was better able to translate the language of God that he was born with perfect knowledge of into what he had to teach and preach. So to go back to the psalm analogy, Jesus would be perfectly able to “leaf through” scriptures and think, “Yes, this is a good one to use when trying to explain this part of the Kingdom of God. They will understand that one.” It’s not like he had to read the Old Testament to know what God’s been up to because he already was totally part of God’s “native language” and “universal computer,” to combine my two analogies. He knew the entire how’s” and “why’s,” but he let himself be an authentic human (Son of Man) in order to learn alongside humans how best to teach them and preach to them. He did not come to earth in order to be smarter and more erudite than everyone else. He did not have to rattle off scripture quotations faster than anyone else in six different languages.

Remember, he amazed the teachers in the Temple in Jerusalem at the age of twelve by how he answered questions, showing comprehension of the how’s and why’s that they had never seen before. He did not come to earth to be the perfect scribe, but to be the Messiah. He came to share his perfect knowledge, to show a human solidarity, and then show the way to perfect belief and faith leading people toward the Kingdom of God.

St. Irenaeus and the people who knew Jesus

My friend at http://www.crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/ has a nice post regarding St. Irenaeus on his feast day today. He's one of the first apologists of the faith born in 130 AD and martyred in 202 AD.

Reading tiber's post you are reminded that many thousands of people saw Jesus in person, heard him preach, and knew his Apostles. Just because the Gospels have only a few people mentioned by name, there are frequent entries in the Gospels of the multitude of people who interacted with Jesus. I try to be patient with people who wonder if Jesus "really existed" and if he really "was the Messiah" and if he really "performed miracles." Tiber explains using Irenaeus' own words how he learned from St. Polycarp, who "All through his life, he told a friend, he could recall every detail of Polycarp's appearance, his voice, and the very words he used when telling what he had heard from John the Evangelist and others who had seen Jesus."

Tiber also quotes St Irenaeus how "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man..."

Those of you who have been reading my Qur'an posts can now understand how there was a larger body of people than modern people realize, traveling in the Middle East and into Asia, people who personally witnessed Jesus and his Apostles in their times and carried this first hand information throughout the lands. Some of this information is preserved in the Qur'an, who accurately transmits what their ancestors saw and knew about Jesus. The real existence of Jesus as Messiah is not as "murky" and lost in the past as many would have you believe.

Why Christianity and Islam differ about Jesus Christ

Why Christianity and Islam differ about Jesus Christ (and where they agree!)

I plan to write something that will be fully referenced with quotes from the Bible and the Qur'an on this subject. You can think of this post as just a quick outline of what I will cover.

As I've shown in previous posts, Muslims believe that Jesus was a great Prophet who was empowered by Allah to perform miracles and teach Allah's will. They refer to Jesus as "Jesus son of Mary" (Isa son of Marium.) They believe in and acknowledge the virgin birth, and highly praise Mary for her obedience to Allah's will and her as an example of purity and a sign for all people. They also believe that Jesus knew how to speak the words of Allah even as a child. In a way, they have a sounder faith in these dimensions of Jesus Christ's life and works than some liberal "Christians" I could mention, who do not believe in the literal performing of miracles, the virgin birth, and his role as a divinely inspired Prophet of God. They believe that he ascended up to heaven. They believe Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and they call him by that title at times in the Qur'an.

Where they differ is that they do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God ("is not Allah" and "is no more than a Messenger of Allah") and they do not believe that he physically died. They believe that the report of his death was an honest mistake and that people did not understand that he arose.

Surach 4: 156-158

And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grevious calumny.

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Now, what I'll demonstrate in a future post, and what I've alluded to in previous posts, is why they do not believe that Jesus the Messiah physically died and was the Son of God. In summary though the reasons are twofold:

o While they believe that Jesus is the Messiah of the book (the one predicted in the Old Testament) they do not believe that Allah would appear in a human form and be subject to human physicality and persecution. They believe that this would be incredibly beneath the dignity and all powerfulness of Allah himself. Muslims accept that Jesus lived as the Messiah as the result of virgin birth from Mary and the spirit, and received power and support from Allah to perform miracles, and that he was called up to heaven to Allah without dying a physical death.

o Muslims also do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God because they reason that if he was, and since Allah is all powerful, that the entire Jewish people would have converted. This is one reason there is hostility between Muslims and Jews, because Muslims point out in the Qur'an that Jews did not believe their own Messiah when he appeared. So they criticize Jews for their lack of belief, but they also reason that Allah would have converted everyone and there would not have been the rejection of Christ that did occur. They point to scripture where they believe that Jesus Christ, correctly, cursed the Jews for their lack of faith. (They also believe that some words of King David could be interpreted the same way.)

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was born Son of God because Christians believe in one God (Allah) but they believe that God has the form of the Holy Spirit, who becomes the spirit father of Jesus through the Virgin Mary, and that therefore God takes form as the Son within Jesus Christ. This is known as the Trinity in Christian faith, whereby there is one God in three forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians believe that God remained in heaven as all powerful God, even as him as Son in Jesus Christ, was on earth. In other words, God did not remove himself from heaven in order to be inside a human body. This is an important point to emphasize when having dialogue with Muslims, because obviously no one would agree in God ever in total giving up his universal being and infinite existence beyond human understanding. But sometimes Christianity can sound like that at first listening. Jesus Christ often referred to God the Father as being in heaven and that all that he does is the will of God the Father. One reason Muslims are very cautious about Christians who focus exclusively on Jesus Christ as Son of God is that they do not hear as much emphasis on the all powerful and wise God the Father (Allah) and if one looked at the scriptures, Jesus Christ himself constantly pointed back all glory to God the Father (Allah.)

Christians argue that the way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, and quote scriptures to that effect. Muslims agree that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Jewish faith predicted in the Old Testament and of the House of David. So Muslims would understand perfectly well Jesus Christ's teaching of being "the way" in the context of the time and audience, which is the Jewish Messiah being the way to fulfill the old covenant and inaugerate the new covenant. That would be their interpretation of Jesus Christ being "the way." However, they believe that literal worship of Jesus Christ as God takes away from their absolute and firm belief in One God, who they call Allah and who Christians call God the Father. In a way, Muslims view themselves as being the true defenders of faith in One God and One God alone. And this is the same God who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Elias, Aaron, Noah, Jacob (all the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs) right down in time to John the Baptist, who they also believe heralded the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. Here is one of the references to John the Baptist (whose day we just celebrated this past week):

Surah 19: 7, 12-15

O Zakariya! We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya. We have not made before anyone his equal.

O Yahya! take hold of the Book with strength, and We granted him wisdom while yet a child.

And tenderness from Us and purity, and he was one who guarded (against evil).

And dutiful to his parents, and he was not insolent, disobedient.

And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life.

So the point of this post is not to minimize the differences between Islam and Christianity, but to show that the differences are easily understood, if not so easily resolved. There is far more in common between Christianity and Islam than the rhetoric of extremists on both sides would lead one to believe who did not read and study for oneself. I'm willing to bet that few people really understood before reading this the huge amount of common body of belief between Christians and Muslims. And this study will help people to understand some of the harder sections of the Qur'an regarding tolerance, because it is essential to understand that Muslims feel they are the true vanguard of belief in One God, the original God, Allah, of the time of Abraham through the time of Jesus Christ and to the present time. It is that belief that drives some of the vigor and rigorousness of the Islamic faith (and again, I'm talking about mainstream reading of the Qur'an, not extremist on either side.)

I hope that this is helpful to understanding and truly fruitful dialogue, and to the mutual interest in maintaining devotion to God/Allah in an increasingly secular and de-sanctified world that is so impious and demeaning of the sacred.

"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter Four

This is a beautiful chapter and I'm not going to comment on it other than to point out one of the most important statements in the book:

The Beatitudes are promises resplendent with the new image of the world and of man inaugurated by Jesus, his "transformation of values." They are eschatological promises. This must not, however, be taken to mean that the joy they proclaim is postponed until some infinitely remote future or applies exclusively to the next world. When man begins to see and to live from God's perspective, when he is a companion on Jesus' way, then he lives by new standards, and something of the eschaton, of the reality to come, is already present. Jesus brings joy into the midst of affliction. (Chapter 4, pages 71-71.)

********
Pope Benedict does a wonderful job of explaining that Christ did not erase the need to follow the Ten Commandments and the basic law of God, and that the Beatitudes certainly were not meant as a "replacement." The Beatitudes are a map to health and joy on earth as also, with hope at achieving heaven. They are a map because they show how God perceives humans and the suffering that sin generates, and following the precepts of the Beatitudes together with the Commandments ensures greater joy for everyone even in a life of hardship. This is not too hard to figure out if you think about it... the more people who live obeying God's will for humankind, the less "human on human" sin and oppression occurs. Pope Benedict does a lovely job of shedding light on this understanding in this paragraph, and the rest of the chapter (which I'm still enjoying reading.)

Explanations of the Qur'an for Christians (4)

In one of my previous posts, "Why Jesus Lived as a Human," I describe how the words of the twelve year old Jesus, when he is found in the Temple of Jerusalem, indicate that already he had a continual and adult conversation and communion with God the Father. It was internal because Joseph and Mary did not know about it, and Jesus himself explained during his adult public ministry that he communicated and learned from God the Father through prayer.

One of the things that drives me crazy are secularists and, how do I put it charitably, Catholics who are easily swayed in their faith, who attribute a period of human cluelessness and angst to Jesus, as if God had dumped him in human form to wonder who he was and what was going on. If I had one of those old fashioned robes and if I could afford to ruin my clothes I'd rend them in extreme ire. So I'm going to show you a part of the Qur'an that may forever change your misperceptions about the wisdom and knowledge contained in the Qur'an. It is the series of passages where the Prophet (Peace be upon him) records that Jesus spoke as a newborn baby. In the index to the Qur'an there are three sections cited that relate how Jesus "spoke in infancy."

Surah 3:45-46
When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with the Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).
And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones.

Surah 5:110
When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel: and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

Surah 19: 29-34
But she [Marium] pointed to him. They said: how should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?
He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
And he made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;
And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;
And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.
Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.

*****

Has this rocked the world of those of you who have not read the Qur'an? There is greater faith and insight into Jesus Christ (putting aside the disagreement about whether he is titled the Son of God and their problem with the Trinity for the moment) than in many, many Christian "analyses" and "literature" that I have read. When the profane and frankly, just not very intelligent books of fiction and even some horrible liberal theology come out, I just laugh and shake my head, because as people scratch their heads and wonder where the proofs are about Jesus Christ, there is a wealth of it in the Qur'an of all places. This is why I am annoyed extremely when people mischaracterize the mainstream Islamic faith. Anyone who reads the Qur'an devoutly and not as a political agenda cannot miss the love of and respect for Jesus Christ and his mother Mary. Remember that the Arab people were scholars and doctors before Europeans were, and had access to information about the times of Christ that are since unknown and forgotten. And no one can accuse the Prophet of writing in order to propagate Christianity myths and stories, as the Apostles are sometime most horribly accused. How beautiful these writings are, and there is no fault within them, for look: they understand the "at birth" adult knowing and self comprehension of Jesus and his communion with Allah/God, they show how Mary points to Jesus and is always humble and pure (and I have many more passages to share about their view of Mary as "chosen by Allah," "a sign for all peoples," and "woman of truth,") they show how Jesus knows that all comes to him from Allah/God, and that he is the child/man of peace, and that he will be "raised to life." When people "wonder" if Jesus "knew who he was" I am dumbfounded at the ignorance. And I am thankful for the precious information about our faith that is preserved so beautifully in the Qur'an. I am wondering when people of the faith of Abraham will realize that they are not so far apart at all, and I hope that I am helping to bind together and unify the faith in one God and mutual understanding.

Another thing to ponder. The ancient icons of Mary and the child Jesus always show Jesus portrayed as a miniature adult. While it is true that this was a not unknown artistic device at the time, there is also a greater truth revealed in those icons. They are likewise confirming understanding of Jesus Christ's adult knowledge of his purpose and teachings imparted from God the Father, even as a babe.