HUMAN JESUS, DIVINE CHRIST: HIS MISSION, HIS MESSAGE, HIS MINISTRY

I have recently signed a contract with a traditional publisher to publish a book titled Human Jesus, Divine Christ: His Mission, His Message, His Ministry. The manuscript is due in September of this year, and the book should be published sometime next year.

The projected Table of Contents is:

FRONT MATTER:

Acknowledgements

Introduction

TEXT:

Chapter 1: What Kind of Man Was Jesus? Filling the Hole in the Gospel Story

Chapter 2: What Jesus Did—A Wandering Missionary

Chapter 3: What Jesus Said—The Law and the Good News

Chapter 4: What Jesus Said—The Pronouncement Stories

Chapter 5: What Jesus Said—The Parables

Chapter 6: What Jesus Said—The Discourses

Chapter 7: What Jesus Said—The “I AM” Sayings

Chapter 8: What Jesus Said—The Difficult Sayings

Chapter 9: The Miracles

Chapter 10: The Jerusalem Snake Pit

Chapter 11: The Triumphal Entry

Chapter 12: Which Messiah?

Chapter 13: A Temple Tantrum?

Chapter 14: The Temple Controversies, The Olivet Discourse

Chapter 15: The Prosecution Begins

Chapter 16: The Six Trials of Jesus—The Jewish Trials

Chapter 17: The Six Trials of Jesus—The Roman Trials

Chapter 18: The Crucifixion

Chapter 19: What Did It All Mean?

Chapter 20: The Resurrection

Chapter 21: The Resurrection Narratives

Chapter 22: The Divine Christ

BACK MATTER:

Appendix: A Synopsis of the Resurrection Narratives

Bibliography

Index

THE JANUARY 24th ICE SHOOTING

 I have just viewed, re-viewed, and viewed again in slow motion the latest ICE shooting of the detainee in Minnesota. I feel that I am qualified to critique the video because of my 30 years as a prosecutor, during which time I investigated many police shooting.

What I saw was at least four officers forcing the detainee to the ground. As he is belly down on the ground, three officers hold him down and struggle with him while a fourth repeatedly strikes the man with an object which I could not identify. There were enough officers on top of the man to restrain him without the use of deadly force. Get his hands under control, handcuff him, and cart him off. That they appeared to be unwilling or unable to use non-lethal force to subdue him suggests at best inadequate training. As the officers crowd around the man, a shot rings out, and the officers scatter from the man as he rolls onto his back. I plainly see him lying flat on his back while two officers draw their weapons and fire multiple shots into his unmoving body. It didn't look like any of the officers in the group were carrying tasers. With officers in a scrum like the one I saw, it bespeaks poor judgment for one of them to fire a shot in such close quarters. The fellow officers appear to have agreed with me, because they scattered at the first gunshot. Now the officers are standing around the man, who is lying unmoving on his back. Two officers produce firearms, point them at the prostrate body, and fire multiple shots. It is claimed that the man was armed with a 9 mm handgun. If so, it was concealed, should have been unavailable to him with three officers on top of him and him on his stomach, and I never saw it. The first shot fired is hard to justify. The follow up multiple shots do not look justifiable, but the man was probably dead at that time, and it isn't a violation of a corpse's civil rights to fire bullets into his dead body.

Suggestions: Since the video raises many questions about the propriety of the shooting, (1) The officers who fired their weapons should be immediately suspended pending a full and fair investigation by an independent agency conducted in tandem with state agencies. (2). Moving forward, ICE officers should be (a). equipped with tasers or some other form of non-lethal weaponry, (b). equipped with bodycams. (c). trained in proper techniques for handcuffing resisting arrestees who are on their bellies on the ground. (3). Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, and anyone else in the Federal Government should refrain from making judgmental comments about the incident until the investigation is complete and the results are in. (4). The Federal Government should immediately take steps to de-escalate the situation in Minneapolis, not double down on ICE tactics.

I welcome contrasting, well-informed, courteous views that don't accuse me of being a libtard or a sufferer from TDS.

ANNEXING GREENLAND BY FORCE

Donald Trump wants Greenland. Greenland is not for sale. Donald Trump threatens military action to capture Greenland. Greenlanders don’t want to be taken over by America. 

Greenland belongs to Denmark. Denmark is a member of NATO. So is America. Per NATO treaty, America must protect Greenland against invasion. If America invades Greenland, it would be a violation of our NATO treaty obligations. 

Invasion of another nation’s territory to capture land is a war crime. Trump would be a war criminal if he invades Greenland. 

NATO will defend Greenland. We may very well wind up in a war with NATO if Trump invades Greenland. This will be bad for everybody except Russia. 

There is really no need to discuss the matter further. We mustn’t let Donald Trump violate our NATO treaty. We mustn’t let Donald Trump use the American military to commit a war crime. 

Anyone who favors annexing Greenland by force, state a good reason why going to war against Greenland would be lawful. State a good reason why going to war against Greenland would be moral. 

I don't want to hear how much money we will make by forcefully annexing Greenland and taking their rare earths. I don't want to hear how badly I am infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome. I want to hear a rational, courteous explanation why such an insane maneuver would be both lawful and moral.  

ICE SHOOTING OF RENE NICOLE GOOD IN MINNEAPOLIS

 

I just watched a video of Kristi Noem saying that a critic of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis didn't know what he was talking about. I would like to criticize the shooting, and I definitely know more about shootings in general and police shootings in particular than Kristi Noem does.

I’ve prosecuted and defended plenty of shootings in my career. And I have investigated more than a few police shootings. I was even been personally involved in one. I also know something about running over people with a car. I have handled a few of those cases, too.

I am going to try to be dispassionate in my critique and refrain from using incendiary language like "jack-booted thug," "meat-headed police officer with more testosterone than sense," "domestic terrorist," or "left-wing conspirator against law and order."

In my experience, the most justifiable incident involving an officer shooting the driver of a vehicle bearing down on him occurred with the appropriately named Mississippi State Highway Patrolman, John Wayne Leggett. Leggett attempted to stop two escaped murderers when one of them rolled down the rear window of the stolen Bronco they were driving and started shooting at him. They had a running gun battle through the streets of Brookhaven, Mississippi until Leggett chased them into a cul de sac. Leggett got out of his car with a shotgun as the bad guys made a U-turn and raced toward him definitely attempting to run him down. Leggett stood his ground and emptied his shotgun into the windshield on the oncoming car. He struck the driver in the face but failed to stop the onslaught. He finally jumped out of the way at the last minute, with the car barely missing him. The driver, being somewhat disconcerted by the injury to his face, swerved on down the street and rammed a tree on the side of the street. Both men were captured and sentenced to death. One died of natural causes awaiting execution, and the other died in the death chamber at Florida State Prison. I admire Leggett’s courage, but I question his judgement. He could have much more safely shot at the car from behind his nearby cruiser’s trunk.

I have prosecuted a few drivers who ran their cars into officers who were trying to detain them. Never got a conviction because the officers were mistreating the defendants in some way, and the defense was, “I was just trying to get away from the aggressive officer.”

Then there was the case where the officer said he was defending himself from a drug arrestee's vicious attempt to run over him. The problem was that the bullet holes were in the driver’s side window, not the windshield. Pardon me for being skeptical about the necessity for shooting through the side windows of a car that has missed you. I was, however, appreciative of his wisdom in jumping out of the way.

That’s the best defense against someone trying to run you over with a car—jump out of the way. Stand your ground and shoot the driver dead, and you haven’t stopped the car. Not only that, but you have deprived the driver of the ability to stop the car. Best strategy: jump out of the way jump in your patrol car, and give chase. There is a difference between "justifiable homicide" and necessary homicide.

Now let’s look at what was just shown by video evidence to have happened in Minneapolis in the light most favorable to the officer who fired the shot.

The woman was blocking the street. Officers approached her, ostensibly to get her moved out of the way. She and her wife were engaging in conversation with the officers which would irritate a thin-skinned officer, but which should have rolled off a professional officer's skin like water off a duck's back. (Look at the officer's cellphone video if you don't believe me). The officers did two things which were counterproductive to their stated objective of getting her out of the way. One officer grabbed the driver’s side door handle in an apparent attempt to get her out of the car. If she were out of the car, it would be difficult for her to drive out of the way. The other one stood in front of her car, rendering it difficult for her to drive away. It looks far more likely that they were attempting to punish her for "mouthing off" at them than that they were attempting to get her moved. She pulled off, turning to the right, as the officer, standing to the left front of the car shot her dead in "self-defense." He didn’t stop the forward progress of the vehicle, and it eventually crashed.

If she had survived, could a prosecutor have convicted her of aggravated assault on the officer? I don’t think so. She would most likely have defended herself by saying that the officers were being angry and rude (they were yelling and cursing), and she feared they would hurt her if they got her out of the car. Maybe throw her on the pavement, handcuff her behind her back, and use a little unnecessary roughness in the process. She would say that she tried to evade the officer in front of her by driving around him. Verdict: Not Guilty.

As a prosecutor, I would probably not prosecute the officer either. Although I believe he used abominable judgement and committed an unnecessary homicide, giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, I can’t say that I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted unlawfully. That’s a paradox I saw many times as a prosecutor: a homicide which was defensible as being justified but was absolutely unnecessary.

The officer's abominable judgement, however, won't protect him or his department from a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1983.

Two things that I think are the marks of a highly professional officer. He doesn’t lose his cool when a suspect gets verbally abusive, and he uses force judiciously. The ICE officer failed this test of professionalism on both counts.

CAN MINNESOTA PROSECUTE THE ICE OFFICER WHO SHOT THE DRIVER?

The question comes up whether Minnesota can prosecute the ICE officer who shot the lady driver. The answer is "yes" and "no." Before I retired from active practice, the law was that prosecutions of federal officers in state courts can be removed to Federal court, where such prosecutions go to die.

THE WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION: EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM

 

Some folks seem to think there is a war between science and religion. There isn’t. The war is between militant scientism and ultra-conservative strict fundamentalism. “Scientism” is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best way to render the truth about reality. Militant scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the only way to discern the truth about reality. Whether you are a theistic, an agnostic, or an atheistic scientist, you rule out supernatural explanations for events. All three types of scientists rule out the supernatural because in science “. . . and then a miracle happened” is not a very helpful piece of data. Theistic scientists do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural in non-scientific areas, such as matters of faith. Atheistic scientists rule out the possibility of the supernatural in all areas, and atheistic scientists who subscribe to a “theology” of militant scientism are quite disagreeable about their nonbelief, as are many ultra-conservative strict fundamentalists.

Today’s most hotly contested battle is between hard-core Darwinian evolutionists and young Earth creationists. These two schools of thought are irreconcilable.  And they are both wrong. You can be a Darwinian evolutionist and a Christian, as evidenced by books like Michael Dowd’s Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World. History and current events are full of the stories of men and women of faith who have made and are making significant contributions to science. And Christians don’t need to be ultra-conservative strict fundamentalists who believe in a six-calendar-day creation and a 6,000-year-old Earth. For me, John 3:16 is all the theology I really need.

Even before the New Testament was written, Jewish scholars looked at the Old Testament as a book which was not necessarily absolutely literally true. The Jewish historian Josephus, when writing about the creation, ventured the opinion that Moses was “writing philosophically.” In other words, some of the stories in the Torah, while not literally true, taught important spiritual truths. The Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo wrote that Biblical truth was often found in allegory rather than literal history.

The early Christian fathers were open to non-literal interpretations of scripture. Saint Augustine wrote about four levels of meaning in scripture: The literal (historical) meaning, the typological (allegorical) meaning, the tropological (moral) meaning, and the anagogical (spiritual) meaning. He also wrote that the literal meaning of a passage of scripture was often the hardest to cipher out. Saint Augustine wrote a book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in which he argued that the world came into being in a fashion very similar to the Big Bang. As a matter of fact, a man of the cloth, Father Georges Henry Joseph Edouard Lemaitre first advanced the Big Bang Theory in 1927. Of course, he didn’t call it the “Big Bang Theory.” He theorized that the Universe came into existence from a “primeval atom” or a “cosmic egg.” His idea was ridiculed by the atheistic astronomer Frederick Hoyle. Hoyle used the term “Big Bang” as a slur against Father Lemaitre’s “idiotic” theory.

Evolution was a theory long before Charles Darwin came along. What he did was argue that the engine driving evolution was “natural selection,” or “survival of the fittest.” Both before and after Darwin many clerics affirmed evolution but argued that God drove evolution through a process of “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation.”

Thus, the argument between materialistic evolution by natural selection and young earth creationism is a false dichotomy. There are many different nuances of understanding between the two poles.

I have no problem with evolution, but I am highly skeptical of “evolution by natural selection.” I cannot accept the proposition that we are here because of a chain of random accidents. Some atheists have had trouble swallowing that theory. Henri Bergson, in his book Creative Evolution, argued that evolution was driven by a non-theistic “elan vital” or “life force.”

I have my own ideas about the mechanism driving evolution, and they are not incompatible with the belief that God created the Universe. I’ll talk about my theory in another post. Soon, I hope.

VACCINATION, FREEDOM, AND FRAUD

 

I remember when I was a kid, seeing TV news reports showing rows upon rows of iron lungs filled with children.

The disease was deadly, and if it didn’t kill you, it could cripple you. It was scary. Then this guy named Jonas Salk invented a vaccine, and everyone lined up in school to get the vaccine. I was frightened by the stories my classmates told me about how bad the vaccine was. When I got the shot, it hurt, and a sore popped up on the injection site. My vaccination scar has finally faded after all these years. Later they came up with an oral vaccine, and we all lined up again to drink it.

But, remarkably, polio was all-but eradicated.

As a child I suffered through all the childhood diseases: mumps (twice), measles, and chickenpox. Luckily, I didn’t realize at the time how deadly those diseases were.

Then vaccines all-but- eliminated those diseases. God was in his heaven and all was right with the world until…

In 1998 a “researcher” named Wakefield wrote a bogus paper falsely claiming a connection between vaccines and autism. Worldwide news agencies screamed the dangers of vaccination. News that Wakefield and his colleagues had purposely falsified their results got scant attention.

So here we are today, Hell-bent on returning to those dark days of the 1950’s when children died of diseases we can now prevent. And all because a lie can go around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

As an excuse for ending mandatory vaccinations, our Surgeon General, Joseph Lapado says mandatory vaccination is a form of slavery. We've got rights, don't we? We can make our own decisions without being dictated to by the government, can't we? My right to swing my arm ends at your nose. Some inconvenience is necessary in this crowded world to keep people healthy. And we will not stay healthy without mandatory vaccinations. 

Here's a link to the web article that talks about  the bogus vaccine study and the harm it did:

The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud - PMC

INVICTUS REVISITED

WILLIAM ERNEST HENSLEY

When I was in high school, I came across the poem Invictus by William Ernest Hensley. I didn’t pay much attention to the entire poem, but I did like the final quatrain. It resonated with my outlook on life at that time, and I memorized it:

 

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“I am the master of my fate:

“I am the captain of my soul.”

 

Years later, after I had graduated law school, had spent a few years practicing law and had experienced more of the “punishments of the scroll,” I revisited the poem. This was back in 1984, and I was part of a trial team prosecuting a Chicago-based drug smuggling ring. We were trying the case on a change of venue to Tallahassee. The trial was long, and I spent many lonely nights in a motel room reading and writing poetry. The poetry I read was very good. The poetry I wrote, not so much.

 

It turned out, upon rereading Invictus, I realized that the poem was written from an atheistic point of view. Read the original poem and see if you agree with me.

 

“Out of the night that covers me,
“Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
“I thank whatever gods may be
“For my unconquerable soul.


“In the fell clutch of circumstance
“I have not winced nor cried aloud.
“Under the bludgeonings of chance
“My head is bloody, but unbowed.


“Beyond this place of wrath and tears
“Looms but the Horror of the shade,
“And yet the menace of the years
“Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“I am the master of my fate:

“I am the captain of my soul.” 

 

Now I have many bad qualities, but being an atheist isn’t one of them. I still liked the last quatrain, but the rest of the poem gave me a sour taste in my mouth. So one night, as I battled insomnia in my motel room, I revised the poem, in much the same fashion as

Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias was modified by  Morris Gilbert Bishop in his poem Ozymandias Revisited.

 

My modification, which I titled Invictus Revisited, went like this:

 

“Out of the night that covers me,

“Black as the Pit from pole to pole,  

“I thank the Lord of Calvary    

“For my unconquerable soul.  

 

“In the fell clutch of circumstance

“I have not winced nor cried aloud.  

“Under the bludgeonings of chance  

“My head is bloody, but unbowed.  

 

“Beyond this place of wrath and tears  

“Looms not the Horror of the shade,

“And the false menace of the years  

“Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.”  

 

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“God is the master of my fate:

“He is the captain of my soul.” 

THE PRESIDENT'S TROJAN AIRPLANE

 

Article I § 9 of the US Constitution Provides: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” It is commonly called The Foreign Emoluments Clause.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts federal officials from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Titles of Nobility Clause, it was designed to shield the U.S. federal officeholders against so-called "corrupting foreign influences". The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.

The prohibition against officers receiving a present or emolument is essentially an antibribery rule to prevent influence by a foreign power. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, identified the Clause as a key "provision against the danger ... of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers."

The history of public officers receiving gifts from foreign countries is as follows: Benjamin Franklin was given a golden snuffbox by the King of France and got permission to keep it from the Continental Congress. George Washington received a painting of the Bastille and a key to it from the Marquis de Lafayette and a painting of Louis XIV and apparently didn’t get permission to keep the gifts. After Washington, presidents have traditionally sought permission from Congress to keep gifts. Absent permission, the President will deposit the object with the Department of State. For example, Andrew Jackson sought permission from Congress to keep a gold medal presented by Simón Bolívar; Congress refused to grant consent, and so Jackson deposited the medal with the Department of State. Martin Van Buren and John Tyler received gifts from the Imam of Muscat, for which they received congressional authorization either to transfer them to the United States Government or to auction them with proceeds vesting to the United States Treasury. None of these gifts had tremendous monetary value.

Trump accused Biden of making money off his presidency by having gifts funneled to his son Hunter Jr. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. Whether he did or didn’t, that’s history. What Trump is doing now is current events.

From the outset, authorities have argued that Trump’s businesses are profiting off of his foreign investments because of his presidency, and that violates the Emoluments Clause. Others have argued that since George Washington kept two paintings and a key, Trump is doing nothing wrong.

Now Trump wants to take a $400,000,000 airplane from Qatar to use as Air Force One. The current Air Force One is getting old, and they’re working on a new one, but it won’t be ready for two years. Trump wants to use the luxury airplane as Air Force One and keep it after he leaves office by putting it in the property of his Presidential Library. This would dwarf all other foreign emoluments previously approved by Congress. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Trump is getting rich(er) off of a questionable gift from a foreign country.

What would be the mechanics of taking such a Trojan Horse, I mean gift? First, the plane would have to be taken apart to remove all clandestine electronic listening devices and spyware and then put back together. Next it would have to be fitted with all the special equipment necessary to the special mission of Air Force One. All this would be both expensive and time consuming, and it may well be that the fitting out would take years. It may not be ready until Boeing has finished building the new Air Force One. And under the terms of the gift, they’d have to build it anyway, because Trump is going to keep his palatial plane after he leaves office.

This stinks to high heaven. It may not be bribery, but it certainly looks like it. Congress should tell Trump, “No! You cannot have the airplane!” He’s not going to ask permission, but that doesn’t prevent Congress from forbidding the gift. 

REOPEN ALCATRAZ?

Reopen Alcatraz? It was closed down on March 21, 1963, by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr. He closed it because it was too expensive to operate, too expensive to maintain, and it needed massively expensive renovations. It cost 3 times as much to house a prisoner there than it did in other Federal Prisons. It has been closed for 62 years, and it has not gotten any better in that time. It could fairly be characterized as a ruin. In the 1970’s it became a national park, and it is visited by approximately 1,000,000 people per year. Why Did Alcatraz Close Down? | Gray Line of San Francisco. 

If it was expensive to operate 62 years ago, it certainly will be even more expensive to operate today. If it was too expensive to maintain 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to maintain today. If it was too expensive to renovate 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to renovate today. But it’s a supermax facility, isn’t it? It is ideal for the worst of the worst criminals, isn’t it? What was passed for a supermax prison 62 years ago doesn’t quite cut the mustard for supermaxes, or even maximum-security prisons, today. The Feds already have a supermax: USP Florence ADMAX in Colorado. It would be a darn sight cheaper to expand USP Florence ADMAX than it would to resuscitate Alcatraz. I have been in some rough maximum security Federal Prisons (as a visitor), and they exceed Alcatraz as the day exceeds the night. There is no need to reopen Alcatraz. It will be a huge money pit, the prisoners there will not be as securely encased as they will in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons, and the officers guarding them will not be as safe as in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons. 

The only reason I can think of for opening Alcatraz is so that the Administration can say, “See how tough we’re being on the worst of the worst criminals?” As a public relations ploy, it might be worthwhile to reopen Alcatraz. As a fiscally responsible act, it would border on lunacy. 

I thought of titling this post "Birdbrain of Alcatraz" as a tribute to both the Burt Lancaster movie "Birdman of Alcatraz" and the monumentally bad judgment it would take to seriously consider reopening the prison, but I'm trying to control my sarcastic streak.

DEFUND HEAD START?

Several years ago, our youngest granddaughter was enrolled in Head Start. Because both her parents worked, my wife and I would drive her to and from Suwannee Valley Four C’s, our local Head Start program. Our granddaughter was introduced to an excellent educational program, and she prospered. She developed an intense love of reading and learning, and I became known to her classmates as “Papa Bob.” Before long both my wife and I became involved in the administration of the program, and I am still an active member of the SV4C’s Board of Directors. Our granddaughter has long since graduated from Head Start and is now in grammar school, where she continues to excel academically. Head Start gave her a solid background on which to build. It does the same for many economically disadvantaged children. I knew Head Start was a good program before I became involved on the Board of Directors, but since I became a member I have gained a deeper appreciation for the good work done by the program. Since President Trump has taken office, the program has been cut back. Although no irreparable harm has yet been done to the program, his proposed budget for 2026 does not provide for the funding of Head Start. The stoppage of Federal Funding would be disastrous for the program nationwide. I ask that you write to your Federal Legislators urging that they include Head Start funding in the 2026 budget. If you feel that Head Start is a worthy program, you can use the following link to make your Senators and Congressmen/women aware of your concerns: https://nhsa.org/take-action/

ADDENDUM: Trump's big, beautiful budget has come out, and Head Start was not deleted. It will survive, at least until the next budget.

WHY TRUMP WON

Rosie O'Donnell is floating a conspiracy theory that there was chicanery in the 2024 Presidential election and that an unnamed moneybags who owns the internet "fixed" the election. This is pure baloney. Trump won because Joe Biden looked like a pitiful, senile incompetent. And he hung around too long after it was painfully obvious that he was going to get trounced in the general election. Kamala Harris started her campaign in a deep hole and never could dig out of it. Had Biden stepped down at the beginning of the primary season, and had the Democrats nominated someone other than Kamala Harris, a person who who exuded competence and confidence, and looked like neither the second coming of Karl Marx nor a radical social warrior intent on cramming an ultra-liberal agenda down the throats of common people, Trump would have been spanked. In the final analysis, Trump didn't win; the Democrats beat themselves.If they can get their act together for the midterm elections, they just might take back the House and the Senate.

Back in the late seventies Lake City had a thriving chess club. Approximately twenty players met weekly at the old rec center just off Main Boulevard. I have been trying to resurrect the chess club, but the number of players is miniscule compared to what it once was. We meet at 6:30 PM every Tuesday night at Panera. You are invited.

One recurring problem we have is that an odd number of players show up, and that means that one person has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else plays. Last week I decided to do something about that problem. I invented a three-player chess game. I know there are already-existing three-player variants of chess, but I find the boards awkward. Especially when pieces are moving through the center of the board, they behave in what I believe to be un-chessic ways. 

My solution was to use the Glinski hexagonal board and put three armies in three of the six corners. We play-tested the game at our last meeting and decided that the Glinski board, with five circles of hexagons, was too small. I went home and added a sixth circle of hexagons, and I think the board is now large enough. Here is the array of the pieces on the enlarged board:

A clearer picture of how the pieces are set up can be found in this diagram:

For clarity, I have left the squares uncolored in the diagram.

The rules are as in orthodox chess, with the differences as follows:

MOVES OF THE PIECES: Instead of a rank and file, hexagonal boards have a file and two 30-degree cants. Thus, a Rook can move in three directions rather than four. The Bishop moves through the corners of the cells in three diagonal directions. The Queen combines the moves of the Rook and Bishop.

                

                 

THE ROOK'S MOVE

THE BISHOP'S MOVE

 

The King moves one cell on the file, cant, or diagonal. There is no castling. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player. The Pawn moves one cell forward on the file and captures one cell forward on the cant. The Pawn can make an optional two-cell first move. There is en passant capture. The Knight moves one cell on the file or cant followed by one cell on the diagonal.

MOVES OF THE KING AND PAWN

MOVE OF THE KNIGHT

Because there are three diagonals, the Glinski board has three different colors for the cells. For clarity, we have kept all the cells white in the diagrams.

PLAY OF THE GAME: White moves first and attempts to checkmate either Black or Tan. Tan moves second and attempts to checkmate either White or Black. Black moves last and attempts to checkmate either Tan or White. First player to checkmate an adversary is the winner. The un-checkmated player garners a half point draw.

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST NO-NO WHEN BEING ARRESTED?

In order of likelihood of making matters worse, do not:

Offer physical resistance, either violent or nonviolent.

Attempt to escape.

Refuse to comply with reasonable directives.

Verbally abuse the officer or otherwise be disrespectful.

Doing the first two have a high degree of probability of leading to physical injury, and they will certainly lead to additional charges.

Doing the third has a lesser chance of physical injury but can lead to additional charges.

Doing the last has a low chance of resulting in injury unless you are being arrested by an unprofessional police officer or an officer who has been having a bad day. It could, however, result in additional or elevated charges. If it is a warrantless arrest, it’s the officer’s decision what charge to book you under. Almost every criminal act violates a number of statutes. Copping an attitude increases the likelihood of getting booked under the highest number of charges and/or the most severe charges. There is a high percentage of prosecutors who will simply rubber stamp the officer’s charges without engaging in the requisite critical analysis.

Here are a couple of do’s:

Respectfully decline to answer questions about the charge on grounds that the answers might tend to incriminate you. You might think you can bull skate your way out of trouble, but you’ll more likely dig a hole for yourself with your tongue.

Ask for a lawyer. You’re probably not going to get one, but this should end questioning, and if it doesn’t, whatever answers you give to continued questioning are likely to be held inadmissible.

Do remember that the officer is most likely a decent human being with a family he/she would like to go home to at the end of the shift, and in this day of escalating violence against officers they can tend to be jumpy.

GOSPEL PARALLELS

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.COM.
CLICK ON THE PHOTO TO GO TO THE WEBPAGE 

When I was a senior in college I developed an intense interest in the historical Jesus. I read many accounts of the “Quest for the Historical Jesus,” and decided to embark on my own quest. I embarked upon an intense study of the Gospels which lasted until I graduated from law school and began to practice law. Even after that time I still would engage in sporadic bouts of Bible study, and I have amassed two thick books containing notes of my studies.

 

One thing that I was especially intrigued by was the Synoptic Problem—an attempt to explain why the first three Gospels were so similar while at the same time being so different. I read as much as I could about the Two Document Hypothesis, the Four Document Hypothesis, the elusive Q Gospel, Proto-Luke, and many other theories of how the Gospels came to be. I examined several Gospel harmonies and Gospel synopses; and I decided I could distill the various harmonies and synopses into a more harmonious synopsis of my own. I worked on this synopsis for several years and made many false starts toward producing a manuscript of my synopsis. Since most of my work was done in the years BCE (Before the Computer Era), I found the project rough sledding as a spare-time project.

 

Now that we are firmly in the CE (Computer Era), and I have retired from full-time employment, I have decided to publish a manuscript of my synopsis. You might ask, “Why another synopsis (or harmony) of the Gospels. Aren’t there enough already? My answer is, “Yes, there are many, but I find none of them entirely satisfactory.” In harmonies, the authors try to interweave the Gospel of John in among the Synoptics. Given the wide differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels, this is a very difficult task which renders unsatisfactory results. In most synopses, the passages from John are either ignored or consigned to footnotes, another unsatisfactory treatment. Among the synopses, the pseudepigraphal gospels are usually ignored. Throckmorton’s is different in that his synopsis puts pseudepigraphal passages in footnotes.

 

I wanted a synopsis which moved John’s parallel passages out of the footnotes and into the main text. I also wanted the main text to include passages from what I consider the two most important pseudepigraphal gospels, Thomas and Peter. Although they are far inferior to the Canonical Gospels, they are far superior to all the other pseudepigraphal gospels which I have read, and they just might contain a small amount of authentic material.

 

The Synoptic Gospels contain many of the same stories in almost precisely the same order. These stories are called parallels. Although we see many sequential parallels in the Synoptics, many of the parallels are non-sequential. For example, Matthew and Luke report that when Jesus first enters the Temple during the Passion week, he immediately cleanses it. Mark says he just looks around and returns the next day to cleanse the Temple. Then there are doublets—stories which sound a lot like other stories but are sufficiently different to cause the reader to be in a quandary as to whether they are telling different versions of the same story. For example, Matthew reports the exorcism of two Gergesene demoniacs; but Mark and Luke say that Jesus exorcized one Gadarene demoniac. Then we have doublets, which tell very similar stories but are sufficiently distinct details that they are likely different incidents. For example, all three Synoptics tell the story of Jesus healing a leper, but Luke also tells a story about Jesus healing ten lepers. Then there are passages that I call analogs: they tell similar stories, but the stories are very different. For example, Luke’s Parable of the Prodigal Son is similar to Matthew’s Parable of the Two Sons, but they are so dissimilar as to be two different stories. Likewise, the Parable of the Sower, which appears in all the Synoptics, has an analog in Matthew’s Parable of the Weeds.

 

How do we prepare a synopsis which melds all these different types of stories into one harmonious whole? I have tried to accomplish this task by putting the sequential parallels in boldface and arranging them in parallel columns. The non-sequential parallels are included with the sequential parallels, but they are not in boldface. They may be put in parallel columns, or they may be set out below the sequential parallels. I have treated the doublets and analogs the same as non-sequential parallels, but they are usually placed below any non-sequential parallels. The bottommost entries in each section are the pseudepigraphal parallels and doublets.

 

In arranging the stories, I have tried as much as possible to adhere to the numbering system worked out by Albert Huck and Hans Leitzmann.  I have also tried as much as possible to have each story confined to a single page. Where it is not possible to get all the information on one page, I have subdivided the stories and added letters to the section numbers. For example, Luke’s Discourse against the Pharisees is in Huck’s Section 154, but I have subdivided it into 154A-F. When I can’t get all the non-sequential parallels, analogs, and doublets on a single page, I have also subdivided the sections and given them trailing letters. For example, Luke’s story of Sending out the Seventy is placed in Section 139A. The additional material is in Section 139B.

 

Sometimes this system breaks down, as in the story of Peter’s Denials. The parallels are not sequential, but making separate sections for each of the non-sequential parallels would have been tricky, so I put them all in a single section and set them out in boldface despite the fact that they weren’t truly sequential.

 

Throughout the synopsis I have used public domain translations of the texts. The main text will come from the WEB Bible, which is available online at Biblegateway.com. Quotations from the Gospel of Thomas come from Mark M. Mattison’s The Gospel of Thomas: A Public Domain Translation. Quotations from the Gospel of Peter come from M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testament.

 

You will encounter some unfamiliar words in the pages of this synopsis. I have appended a glossary of those words at the end of the book. One word which ought to be defined at the outset is “pericope.” It is a technical term used by Bible scholars which means “Bible story.” Thus, the Parable of the Prodigal Son is a Gospel pericope, as is the story of the baptism of Jesus.

 

Regrettably, the text of this book is single-spaced without spaces between the paragraphs. Although it makes reading somewhat more difficult, doing otherwise would have made the book a great deal longer and more expensive.

THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS?

 Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), the British astronomer who gave the Big Bang its name, was a maverick among his contemporaries. He denied that the Universe started with a Big Bang, and he said that the likelihood of life arising on Earth through the accidental combination of amino acids (the theory of abiogenesis) was similar to the likelihood of a tornado roaring through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747. Hoyle was aware that he had many detractors, but he said, “I don’t care what they think. It is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right.”

Something else that Hoyle said was, “I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.” One scientist who fits Hoyle’s aphorism is Paul Davies (b. 1946), who has written many books discussing God and physics (e.g. God and the New Physics, The Mind of God, and The Goldilocks Enigma). In his books Davies wrestles with the questions of how the Universe came to be and why it is so conducive to the spawning of living things, including sentient living things such as ourselves.

He examines and rejects many explanations, including the explanation that God made the Universe.  In The Mind of God Davies asks the question, “In what sense might God be said to be responsible for the laws of physics?” He then summarizes the thoughts of Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) on the subject. Leibniz first posited that God must be rational. Otherwise, how could we live in a rational Universe? The next attribute of God must be that He is omnipotent. He made everything. How could He not be omnipotent? A rational, omnipotent God must also be perfect. This concept is probably beholden to St. Anselm’s (1033-1109) Proslogion, where he argues that God is someone “than whom there is nothing greater.” What else can we say about a rational, omnipotent, perfect God? He must be omniscient. Leibniz held that God must have these characteristics. Then Leibniz asked the question, what kind of a Universe would be made by a rational, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God? The best of all possible Universes.

Leibniz’s theory that we live in the best of all possible worlds was savagely ridiculed by Voltaire (1694-1778) in his work Candide, where he made a learned nitwit by the name of Professor Pangloss the butt of his jokes. Of course, Voltaire made the problem of evil his argument against this being the best of all possible worlds.

Of course, we, with our limited knowledge, doubt that this is the best of all possible worlds. But what’s best for us may not be best for the Universe as a whole. To those who would criticize God for making a less-than-perfect Universe, Rev. J. Vernon McGee (1904-1968) said, “This is God’s Universe, and God does things His way. You may have a better way, but you don’t have a Universe.”

Davies, of course, doesn’t believe God created the Universe, but he seems to think that our Universe is the best of all possible Universes. He bases this opinion on the twin facts that mathematics so perfectly describes everything in the Universe and that the Universe is perfect for the spawning of sentient life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, he considers several explanations for this, including the theory that God made the Universe. I forget which explanation he said that he  preferred, but I do recall that when I read all the possibilities he put forward, I decided that God is the simplest, best explanation for the Universe being the way it is.

POST COLONIAL THEORY

I'm learning about an academic and activist phenomenon called Post Colonial Theory. I never heard of it before, and I might be severely misconstruing what I've learned, but it seems to me that the bedrock of Post Colonial Theory is as follows:

Heterosexual white males of European descent began to overrun the world not long after Columbus sailed, and eventually wound up carving out a world-wide colonial empire which marginalized and exploited the people of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. This marginalization and exploitation continued for centuries, until it began to fall apart after World War II. 

Even now though, heterosexual white males of European descent continue to marginalize people of other races by insisting that the best way to gain knowledge is through the use of the scientific method, observation, experiment, logic, and reason, supported by rigorous, peer-reviewed research. These methods are products of Western culture and are used as tools of White Supremacy to keep people from previously colonized ethnicities on the margins of society.

The solution is to reject these Western white male "hetero-normative" tools of White Supremacy and use other traditional, emotional, non-rational methods of gaining knowledge. This is the kind of thinking behind the website A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction (endorsed by the Oregon Department of Education), which states that that “white supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms” when educators require students to show their work. I wish I'd known that when my high school algebra teacher insisted that I show my work. I could have confronted him about how unfair he was being.

What the Post Colonial Theorists seem to want to do is to jettison white male heterosexual educators who use the tools of White Supremacy like the scientific method and logic, and replace them with educators who are not white, male, or heterosexual, and who do not use White Supremacy tools like logic and reason.

This all seems to be based on a value judgment that white males of European descent are evil because of this history of imperialism. If that is true, then the vast majority of the people claimed to have been marginalized by white male Europeans are also evil. On every continent with the possible exceptions of Australia and Antarctica, ethnic groups have engaged in imperialism, conquering and subjugating people of other races, exploiting them, and remaking the conquered lands into their own image.

It began with Sargon of Akkad and continued through the Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Mongols, Arabs, Turks, Zulus, and Maoris, to name a few nonwhite ethnicities who have embarked on a program of conquest and subjugation.

A GOLD MEDAL FOR "VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF CHESS"

Last Saturday was the Florida Authors and Publishers Association awards banquet. Although I was registered for the banquet, I decided that the uncertainty surrounding the pathway of Hurricane Debby dictated that I not go. So I stayed home to batten down the hatches for Debby. As it turned out, I could have gone and gotten back before the hurricane hit, but I am satisfied that I did the right thing by staying home.

As it turned out, we got flooded. I feared that the water was going to come into the house, but it stopped at the western side of our house. It probably took out the air conditioner's air handler, but the inside of the house stayed dry. We were without power for about 15-20 hours, and our septic tank is still submerged, but with the help of our friends and our son, John, we got through it OK. 

I was naturally curious about how I did in the contest, but information on the web was scanty. Today, however, they sent me my Gold Medal. Being colorblind, I thought it was Bronze until I compared it to previous Bronze and Gold Medals. When I received notification that I was a winner, I predicted that I would get a Bronze, and I was just a little off.

Now, with that Gold Medal and a $10 bill, I can get a small cup of coffee at Starbucks. It ain't like a Gold Medal from Paris, but I take a good measure of pride in the accomplishment. When I submitted the book, I was sure I wasn't going to win anything.

If you are among that small minority of people who like Chess and Chess Variants, you'll like "Variations." I'm now working on a book that should have a somewhat broader appeal, but it will never make the New York Times best seller list. Advice for aspiring authors: Don't quit your day job.

After I finish my current project, I am planning on writing a popular account of the trial of Jesus. About ten years ago I did a heavily footnoted "scholarly" treatment of the trial, and my son John told me that the five people who would read the book would enjoy it. He was right. This next book, however, won't have any pretensions for being a scholarly work. Maybe more people will read it.

MIDDLE EASTERN CHESS PIECES

 

RAMBO versus DUMBO

Our president is senile, weak, and ineffectual. His opponent is profane, pugnacious, and a habitual liar. The president seeks to retain power as best he can, and his opponent seeks to grasp that power by any means, fair or foul, preferably foul.

I imagine our country as a toilet bowl recently flushed, with the water swirling round and round as it goes down the drain. It seems we are incapable of saving ourselves, and we're going to continue that downward swirl by electing either Dumbo or Rambo.

The question is not whether Dumbo or Rambo will be best for our country; it is which one will do the least amount of damage to our already tattered Republic. It appears to me that although either candidate will do damage to our country, we will be better able to recover from the damage done by Dumbo than by Rambo.

As I see things, Dumbo's heart is in the right place, but his head is in a dark, moist place. Rambo's heart is set on power and revenge, and nothing else seems to matter to him. Whatever he needs to say or do to obtain power, he will do. And whatever he needs to say or do to retain power, he will do. He's even talking about an unconstitutional third term. And this man of God's favorite Bible verse? "An eye for an eye." As a second-term president, he will give lip service to traditional American values while trampling them under his feet. He's like the protagonist in the Piet Hein poem: 

A fellow I know can get mountains to move and all opposition appeases:

He preaches what God cannot help but approve and does
what the Devil he pleases.