My brother, Mark, tells me that he wants to be “his own hero.”

What does it mean to be “my own hero”? A hero is someone who saves somebody else. Is somebody who saves only their own self really a hero?

We think of people who are heroes as people who sacrifice themselves for other people. They give up something of their own to help others.

To be your own hero is to put your self and your needs before all others and to help your self before others. But isn’t that exactly what a villain does? A villain puts their own needs, wants, and desires before others. To be “your own hero” is to be a villain to everybody else.

If the self is a creation of what others see in us, then others will see a person who is a villain when they see a person who is “their own hero.” They will see a personal who sacrifices and gives nothing.

We love people who are true heroes and sacrifice for others. We do not and cannot love people who sacrifice only for themselves. Ultimately, what they sacrifice is the other or “other people.” Ultimately, they sacrifice their humanity and their humanness.

Humanness is what the Chinese philosopher Confucius talked about when he talked about “Jen.” This is a discussion of “Jen” from an online course in Oriental philosophy at Lander University in South Carolina.

1. The virtue of virtues; Confucius said he never really saw it full expressed. The other virtues follow from it. He never gives and defends a definition of it although he does characterize it.
2. It is dearer than life itself–the man of jen will sacrifice his life to preserve jen, and conversely it is what makes life worth living.
3. Jen is a sense for the dignity of human life–a feeling of humanity towards others and self-esteem for yourself.
a. Such feeling applies to all men–not just one nation or race. It is the foundation of all human relationships.
b. There is the belief that jen can be obtained; indeed, there is the belief in the natural perfectibility of man. Hence, he rejects the way of human action where one satisfies likes and avoids dislikes.
c. The first principle of Confucianism is to act according to jen: it is the ultimate guide to human action.
4. We should seek to extend jen to others.

Ultimately, it is by what we do for others that we will be remembered by. In the here and now, it is what we do for others that really makes us feel good.

How responsible is the NRA for this epidemic. We can get a reasonable idea by comparing the results if the United States had the same strict gun control laws as in countries such as Japan and the United Kingdom which have responded to the needs of its citizens with strict gun control laws.

The following statistics are from gunpolicy.org.

In Japan (pop: 127 million), where there is strong gun control, the number of gun homicides in 2008 was 11.

In the United Kingdom (pop: 63 million), where there is less strong gun control, in 2008, the number of gun deaths was 32, about 6.5 times the rate of Japan.

In the United States (pop: 315 Million) where there is less gun control than any industrialized nation, the number was 12.179 gun homicides. Since the population of the United States is approximately 2.5 times the population of Japan, we should times the Japanese 11 murders by 2.5 to get 28 murders for 2008, if Japan was the population size of the United. To get the number of times greater the gun homicide rate in the United States is, we divide 12,179 by 28 to get 435. The murder rate in the United States with lax gun control is approximately 435 times greater than the murder rate of Japan with strict gun control.

For Great Britain the murder rate is 6.5 times greater than Japan, so we can divide 435 by 6.5 to get a U.S. rate of 67 times greater than Great Britain. The gun homicide rate is about 67 times greater in the United States than in Great Britain.

We cannot hold the NRA responsible for every gun homicide in the United States. We can only say that by preventing strict gun control laws as in Japan, for every 435 gun homicides, the NRA is responsible for 434 of them. Dividing 435 by 435, we get 99.7% Thus, by preventing strict gun control laws as in Japan, the NRA is responsible for 99.7% of gun homicides in the United States.

By preventing somewhat less strict gun control as in Great Britain, the NRA is responsible for 66 out of every 67 gun deaths. This gives us a rate of 98.5%. Using this fact, the NRA would only be responsible for 98.5% of the gun deaths.

By preventing gun control laws somewhere between Great Britain and Japan’s gun control laws, the NRA is responsible for 98.5 to 99.7% of the gun homicides in the United States.

It is true that the NRA is not responsible for every gun death in the United States. They are only responsible for somewhere between 98.5% and 99.7% of them.

He describes a baptism ceremony for the initiate (Chapter 64).

1. Initiate is brought to a place where the brethen are gathered
2. Initiate washed
3. Prayers for Brethren and Initiate are given
4. Everybody says Amen. (Agreed)
5. President gives thanks and everybody says amen again.
6. Deacons hand out wine and bread.
7. Distribution of bread and wine to those who are absent.

Now that the magic initiation ceremony is over. What does the initiate do for the rest of their life. He describes this in chapter 66:

This is what Christians do:

1. Remind each other about doctrines
2. Wealthy helps the needy
3. Hang out together.
4. Bless Jesus and the Holy Ghost
5. Gather on Sundays

• a. Memoirs of the Apostles or works of prophets are read if time permits
• b.President gives a pep talk to be good and act like Jesus and prophets
• c. People give thanks and say Amen.
• d. President gives thanks and everybody says Amen.
• e. Bread and wine are distributed. People drink and eat.
• f. Deacons send out bread and wine to those who are absent.
• g. There is a collection of money that the President gets. Theoretically, he uses this money to care care of anybody who needs it.

What is interesting is that the initiation ceremony is about the same as the regular Sunday ceremony minus the washing.

When we get past all the mystical nonsense, we see that Christianity begins as a primitive form of banking and insurance. People gather and give their money to a custodian (president) who holds it and gives it out to those who are in need. The drinking of wine and sharing of bread is simply a symbolic assurance that the customers (Christians) will get their money back when they need it. It is like the passbook and month accounting statements that the banks use to give out or the online activity and account statements that we now get when we bank online.

It was because it performed an important economic function (banking and insurance) that Christianity grew and continued.

Circumcision as shown by Egyptians

3rd Century, John baptizing Jesus.

What really separated Christianity and Judaism in the beginning was not any positive theological doctrines. I should like to propose that a man named Jesus coming back from the dead, being a son of God, or a prophet, or a magician with powers from God were all insignificant later issues. It seems to me that the original issue was circumcision.

The Baptism ritual may be seen originally as a gimmick to get gentiles interested in Judaism. It is a nice cleansing ritual developing out of utensil cleansing rituals. If the body is a utensil that you use like a knife or spoon, why not wash it too and bless it with a prayer?

This is a very nice gimmick for getting the others interested in Judaism and presenting it as a healthy practice. However, the real mark of Judaism is the cutting of the foreskin. In order to become Jewish you have to be circumsized. That’s the mark or the sign that you are a Jew. It is the physical proof of your agreement to the Hebrew covenant with God and all other Jews.

The Jewish revolt against the Romans in the First century needed help. Romans probably outnumbered Jews at least 10 to 1. Therefore the Jews needed help to free themselves from the heavy taxation and political control of the Romans. They needed to recruit Jews from outside the ranks. Increasing the number of Jews was a strategy for liberation. It was purely a strategic move to serve a political goal.

The problem was that it was easy to attract people’s attention. Judaism had a beautiful temple, the idea of an invisible or unknown God who would protect you, and it had the pleasurable watery baptism ritual. The problem was that few gentiles would want to take the next necessary step after baptism of cutting off the foreskin of their penis. (Note: women did not count for much in ruling class eyes at this time in Judea, so recruitment policy would only aim at men)

Christianity begins with the more practical militant Jews who don’t care about the foreskins and Jewish tradition. For them the baptism ritual is enough. Their attitude is “Dunk them under the water and they’re in, they’re one of us. They can fight on our side.” They can argue that if the Jews make someone a king by anointing them with a little oil on the head, can’t just dipping someone under the water make someone a Jew? Is not all things possible with God?

This is the founding idea of Christianity. the idea that baptism can be a substitute for circumcision. It represents the most important and earliest argument in the writings of Paul and it is symbolically represented in the Baptism of Jesus, where a Galilean gentile suddenly gets magical powers and becomes a Jew (a son of God) simply by undergoing the Baptism ritual. (Making Jesus a Jew to begin with is a Second century afterthought

Christianity begins with Jews who want to devalue the circumcision ritual and add value to the baptism ritual.

In a certain sense, the transformation of the baptism ceremony into a full initiation ceremony is all that Christianity was in the beginning and the rest of Christian history is footnotes.

Bart Ehrman

While reading Bart D. Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist,” HarperOne, 2012, I noticed what appears to be a Paradox. Ehrman claims that we can know some opinions Jesus expresses in the gospels were really the historical Jesus’ opinions because they match Paul’s opinions. A few pages later, he claims that we can know some opinions of Jesus from the gospels are the opinions of the historical Jesus because they do not match Paul’s opinion.

Here is the first passage in question from pg: 303:

We can know that Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher because Paul, the earliest writer of the earliest Christian Communities, wrote things similar to it that agrees with it.

Here is Ehrman arguing ten pages later, on page 312:

We know that Jesus was concerned about helping the poor, oppressed, and needy, because he said that was the way to get to heaven, and “later Christians–including most notably Paul” did not hold that opinion.

In the first case, agreement with Paul because Paul is early means we have a true opinion of Jesus. In the second case disagreement with Paul, because Paul is later, means we have a true opinion of Jesus.

Worse, Ehrman even cites the same passages in Paul to prove both cases. In the First case Thessalonians 4:13-5:12, and in the second case, Thessalonians 4:14-18, which is certainly is a part of 4:13-5:12.

Thus we have a true opinion of Jesus because it matches the earliest source – Paul, but then invoking the principle of Dissimilarity, we have a true opinion of Jesus because it does not match the later source Paul.

Not only does Paul prove Jesus held an opinion when he agrees with it or disagrees with it, but it seems that Paul is both the earliest source when we invoke the principle of similarity (which Ehrman labels the principle of “multiple attestation,” but the same words of Paul magically become a later source when he invokes the “principle of dissimilarity.”

We can formulate Ehrman’s Paradox this way:

When Paul agrees with Jesus, this proves the historical Jesus held that opinion
When Paul contradicts Jesus, this proves the historical Jesus held that opinion.
Therefore Paul proves the historical Jesus held an opinion because he agrees or contradicts it.

Perhaps somebody wiser than I in ways of New Testament Scholars can help me understand this Paradox.

• Nixon                       2
• Ford                          2
• Carter                       2
• Reagan (1st term)  4
• Reagan (2nd)          3
• H Bush                      1
• Clinton (1st term)   2
• Clinton (2nd)          3
• W. Bush (1st term) 6
• W. Bush (2nd)        6
• Obama                      2

The worst attack was the April 18, 1983 one on the U.S. embassy in Beirut Lebanon while Ronald Reagan was president. A total of 63 people died, of which 17 were Americans.

I do not think the word “αὐτόπται” (autoptai) in the first line of Luke should not be translated as “eyewitness.” This gives a misleading impression of everything that follows. It falsely makes it seem that Luke is an historian, when he is really more of a prophet-teacher.

The first sentence in the gospel of Luke is this:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου,

If we see this in conjunction with the gospel of John’s 1:14 (“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”), we get the interpretation that he is talking about people who have seen Jesus, He is talking about eyewitnesses to Jesus. This is a false impression.

One problem here is that Luke is not trying to sound like John’s Jesus and expressing some profound metaphysical doctrine, but he is simply giving an explanation of why he is writing his work. The work that it should be compared to is the beginning of Papias’ “exposition of the Oracles of the Lord”

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,–what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias is basically distinguishing between information gathered from reading books and information from oral preaching. This distinction would be extremely important in a society where 95% of the people was illiterate. Papias may be being rhetorical here, claiming he got his information from actual people rather than just reading books. What is important is the distinction he is making between reading and listening.

Going back to Luke, we should understand that in this first statement, the term “Word” (Logou) would not refer to Jesus himself. If he wanted to say Jesus, he would have. Instead, in this context the better translation of Logou would be “story” or “ideology” or “philosophy.” He is explaining why he is writing  “our story,” “our ideology,” or “our philosophy” He is explaining why he is telling the Christian story, ideology- philosophy.

The word “αὐτόπται” (autoptai) is translated as “eyewitness,” but it actually means something like “self seeing” coming from the Greek words autos  – self and optanomai  – I am seen by. The translation of the word as “eyewitness” does not really capture the sense of the word here. The word is not a common word and its exact meaning can only be understood in conjunction with the word “ὑπηρέται” (hupéretés)

Here is the difinition from Strong’s concordance: 5257 hypērétēs (from 5259 /hypó, “under” and ēressō, “to row”) – properly, a rower (a crewman on a boat), an “under-rower” who mans the oars on a lower deck; (figuratively) a subordinate executing official orders, i.e. operating under direct (specific) orders.

We can get more of a sense from translating it as self see-ers and ministers of the word. The self see-ers see what needs to be done and the ministers just do it, carrying out the orders, so to speak

Luke is both self-seeing and ministering (carrying out/telling) our Christian story, just like the people who taught him our Christian story. Luke is really saying that he is getting the story by self-seeing and speaking it.

The distinction recalls the distinction that Papias made between readings of books and speakers. By self-seeing (“αὐτόπται”) Luke means reading and figuring out for himself the story. We can contrast this type of reading with a type of reading where one just reads and accepts everything that is written. Luke is reading critically, he is seeing and judging for himself the text. He is not just being a minister carrying out someone else’s orders, speaking words invented by others. He is self-seeing, determining the words for himself.

He is reading it. critically figuring out the story for himself and hearing the story from others. Luke is just doing what his Christian teachers did – reading carefully and listening to Christian Ministers.

Luke does not say that he is getting the story from eyewitnesses as the many translators of the text suggest. Rather the opposite, he is suggesting that he himself is actively involved in figuring out the true story and not just passively relaying it.

What Romney/Ryan proposes is actually billions of dollars in cuts in Medicare, where people will get less services for the money spent..

Consider these two cases.

1. I expect to pay $23,000 for a certain car (for example, a Toyota Prius). When I go to a dealer, the car I want costs $30,000. The dealer offers me an inferior car (for example, a Toyota Yaris) for $23,000. In this case there has been a real “cut” in what I am getting for my money.

2. A car I want costs $30,000. A dealer down the street offers me the same car for $23,000. In this case I am receiving the same car and I have saved $7,000. This is a savings.

Case #1 is Romney/Ryan’s plan – real cuts in what people will get for the money spent. Case #2 is what President Obama’s plan has done – real savings and no cuts in services.

By calling President Obama’s savings “cuts” and their plan “savings,” Romney/Ryan are simply lying. This is almost as bad as the terrible crime of sacrificing poor, elderly people’s health, while enriching the rich (themselves) with tax cuts.

This tragedy affects every single movie goer in the United States. I believe every movie goer has a right to compensation. They have been adversely affected by this event. Who will ever go to a movie again for the next few years without feeling discomfort and fear. The people responsible for producing this discomfort and fear should pay for it.

The people responsible are the leaders of the National Rifle Association. The NRA has fought consistently to prevent gun control laws that could have averted this tragedy. The facts are clear and overwhelming that gun control works. One has only to look at the countries that have strong gun control laws to see that they have much lower violent death rates and no massacres.  The link between gun control and lower violent death rates is as scientifically proven as the link between smoking and cancer.  Any reasonable jury when presented with the facts would understand this and see the connection.

I suggest that all movies goers join in a class action suit against the National Rifle Association. The 100 million movie goers should be entitled to at least $20 each for the harm caused to them by this incident. The National Rifle Association should be sued for at least $2 billion for enabling the Colorado Movie Massacre.

I hope that some courageous lawyers will take this case and organize this class action law suit.