Wise Men Follow a Star

The late, great, four-star General George S. Patton, famous for his command of the American Armored divisions that defeated the Nazis and Hitler during World War II, believed he had been a warrior in his many past lives. Biographers are quick to detract from his personal belief, explaining it to be spawned from the fact that Patton knew the ancient battles so well, that he felt like he had been there as a warrior. I, though I don't believe in past lives, think that if I did believe in it, I would have been a cartographer. I love maps. I'm always interested in how they were created, and what the explorer thought of the newly discovered lands as he mapped them out. I love reading maps. I love exploring them.  I love depending on maps (without a GPS). A few friends have even dubbed my map skills as the MPS (Mike Positioning System). I always want/need to know where I am, and I'm always keen to point out alternate routes (to the chagrin of my friends driving the car) if I feel we should be headed that way.
I mention this anecdote because I feel a particular comradery with the Magi of the Nativity story. They made the arduous journey for many months to seek out the Christ child in Israel many centuries ago. They had maps, but they were led by another resource, the Star of Bethlehem. Their journey mimics the journey that all Christians should take to seek out Jesus in their present lives. I wish to focus on what we should take from this story's inclusion in the Gospel of Matthew, give it some context in history, and go through some misconceptions about the Magi, while also trying to find the truth behind the Biblical story. 

The Faith

The Gospel of Matthew is the only gospel that includes this story. It has been suggested that Matthew's message was meant for the Jews, hence his harping on messianic prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled them. Jews, if they were faithful to their scriptures, would know the references being made in Matthew and equate Jesus with the Messiah. Let's start with the first mention of the Magi and this new king of the Jews...

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem ² and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." - Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)

The Magi, also called "Wise men", arrived in Jerusalem to try to find the newborn king of the Jews. It is clear that they are Jewish (possibly exiled during the Babylonian occupation), or at least recognize the importance of Jewish history, leadership, and prophecy through this passage. They knew he was born because they "saw his star" and were coming to "worship him". They naturally came to Jerusalem assuming the new king would be living in the seat of power, or the people in power would know where he was. The Gospel later says...

³ When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ⁵ “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
⁶ “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.’” - Matthew 2:3-6 (NIV)

King Herod did indeed know where Christ would be born but only through the community teachers and priests; He did not know where the Messiah would be born himself. And he was troubled along with all of Jerusalem at this time. Why? Well it's important to remember the context of King Herod and 1st century Israel. In reality, Israel didn't exist as a country that we think of today. It was the province of Judea, as part of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar. It included a major commercial route at the time, from Egypt to the far east (Persia, India, China) and to Rome, Greece, and Anatolia in the north and west. It was also very close to the border with the Parthian Empire, which was a major rival to Rome at the time. Herod was a king only by the grace of the Emperor himself. He was not independent of the empire, nor would he keep his kingship if the Emperor thought he was sowing seeds of rebellion in his realm. King Herod would have been executed, had news gotten to Rome of a newborn king, who gained that title without the consent of the Emperor. Jerusalem would be dealt with harshly by Rome if they were seen as supporting a usurper, much like Israel would suffer about 70 years later when Rome put down the first Jewish Revolt. It was worrisome, and certainly Herod would not allow another king of the Jews to exist.


The Gospel continues...

⁹ After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. ¹⁰ When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. ¹¹ On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. - Matthew 2:9-11 (NIV)

It has been suggested that the Magi brought these gifts as representations of their foreign countries. It is unclear where the Magi came from exactly, other than what we know from verse 1, "from the east". As I'll explain later, these gifts were not commonly found east of Judea. Categorically, they'd be found south, not east. In addition to that fact, we can't assume that the Magi were 3 in number just because they gave three gifts. People didn't travel so exposed in that day, and certainly not that distance on major trade routes that would be filled with bandits and robbers along the way. If they had the money to undertake the journey, and give such valuable gifts, surely they had protection traveling with them, and there is no way of really knowing how many came to worship the newborn Jesus.

The Weird

How did the Magi know Jesus was born? What was "his star"? Why those three gifts?

Magi are lookin' FLY

 




The Magi
The term "magi" is the root from which we get the word "magic" but that does not add any meaningful association. What is important about this term is that there was a class of ancient astronomers that apparently were in seats of power of near east Asian countries of the time. It is suggested that Parthia, Persia, and India all had Magi in their royal courts because of their knowledge of the heavenly bodies. It's not so much that they interpreted the stars to mean certain things about those born in those times (like Astrology) but many ancient cultures saw omens in the sky and wanted those omens interpreted. If something out of the ordinary happened, those rulers in those countries would want to know what it meant. Some people full on suspect the Magi to be astrologers from the traditions of Zoroastrianism, a religion popular in Persia at the time, with 2.6 million adherents even today.
Some scholars say this is impossible, because God would not make astrologers an instrument of the confirmation of the coming of the Messiah because astrology is condemned in the Bible. (Isaiah 47:13-14) I see your scripture and raise you another, it's one of my faves...

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
² Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
³ They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
⁴ Yet their voice^[b] goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world. - Psalm 19:1-4 (NIV) emphasis added

Now, I won't claim to believe even a little in astrology in its modern context. It's a curiosity and not a real good way to live your life. I feel they are subjected to self-fulfilling prophecies, i.e. "My horoscope said I would have a bad day, and look, I spilled my coffee on my clothes. It must be a terrible day ahead." That kind of stuff is psychological and the stuff of "cold reading" (maybe someday I'll write about that too, but I honestly don't know how I'd pair it with a Biblical topic). It's hogwash.
Back to the topic at hand, I believe the Magi could have been astrologers in the ancient context. Astronomers and Astrologers were almost the same around this time in history. Both watched the sky in earnest for signs of what was to come. I would say, to trust the astrologer before the Bible would be the condemned part, but the skies certainly can inform us of what is to come, if we are looking for Biblical knowledge, not petty personal stuff. It is clear that whatever knowledge or observation was telling the Magi to go to Judea seeking the newborn king of the Jews was powerful enough and without question in their minds. Why else would they go on a journey with such confidence as to take months, even years to complete? It must be something they saw, which is where we get mention of the new king and "his star".

The Star
So if the Magi were part of a powerful class of astronomer/astrologers, wise, and rich (evidenced by their gifts to Jesus), how do we explain the star of Bethlehem?There have been a myriad of explanations for the Star of Bethlehem. Some say it was a conjunction, or close passing of planets or other celestial bodies that would have produced a brighter than usual "star" or other symbolic meaning. This is a pretty popular theory. Others say it was a nova (new star) that was seen around the time of Jesus' birth. Still others say it was a supernova (where a star temporarily brightens before exploding). These theories put forth reported nova, supernova, and conjunctions of planets/stars that would produce a bright light noticeable to the naked eye, and certainly noticed by the Magi. Modern astronomers have turned back the clock to reveal multiple conjunctions and even a "Star of Bethlehem" joining of Jupiter and Venus around 2 B.C. There is a problem with that, however, in that the most probable year for the birth of Christ is 4 B.C.
 We know Herod executed all the male babies 2 years and younger in Bethlehem whenever the Magi went back to their origin by a different road (Matthew 2:16). We also know he learned this date from the Magi. So by this, we know Jesus to be almost 2 by the time he was visited by the Magi. So, the Magi could not have prepared and gathered themselves for their journey with enough time to see Jesus before he was 2 years old unless this special star was seen by at the latest 3 B.C. ... not 2 B.C.There is another problem with the conjunction theory, in that these conjunctions happen so commonly, that it is impossible to say which one set the Magi's trip in motion. See this website for pictures and further explanations of the conjunction and other theories.

It's possible that there was a nova or supernova which attracted the Magi's attention, and they would last a fair amount of time to be seen during their trip.

Chinese records show a nova in the constellation of Capricorn in 5 B.C. before Christ's probable birth, but no others around that date. It also is unlikely a supernova would have been missed by record-keepers, as there is no mention of one. However, it remains a possibility, ever so slightly. It's possible also that the Magi had a heavenly being, such as an angel, point them in the right direction. However, they do not distinguish between the star that gets them to Jerusalem and the star that gets them to Bethlehem, and I'm sure many would have followed the Magi if there was a heavenly being roaming around Mesopotamia for a few months guiding them. That, however, remains another slight possibility.

I postulate that the Magi did see a conjunction, or perhaps a combination nova and conjunction that had some association with Judea, the Jews, and kingship. That combination gets them to Jerusalem, but not to Bethlehem, where they were led by the star once more. The conjunctions and nova commonly sited as candidates would not be able to move as to be seen in the western sky, then suddenly the southern sky, which would have been the route to Jerusalem, then to Bethlehem. The Gospel says it "rose", "went ahead of them (the Magi)" , and "stopped" over the place where Jesus was. This could have been a UFO (thanks Ancient Aliens) but the explanation given for a retrograde Jupiter kinda sounds nice.
Jupiter is known as the king of the planets, mostly because of its prominence in the sky and the fact you can see it with the naked eye. Something to do with Jupiter surely would make the Magi think a new king was born or was about to take power. It has been shown that Jupiter would have been in the southern sky and would have stopped its procession across the sky to go into retrograde motion, meaning it looks to be standing still before moving again in the opposite direction for a few months. It's possible this stop in motion led them to Bethlehem and the house where Jesus was.
We know Herod put to death several dozen infants 2 years and younger to try to kill this newborn king of the Jews, so there must have been many newborns and toddlers. How did the Magi know which house? This, I think, is explained if we assume that because the Magi cared enough to worship a Jewish king, they cared to find out what other prophecies were being fulfilled in Him, and that would have narrowed down the search.

The Gifts
So once the Magi get to the infant/toddler Jesus, they bring Him three gifts... Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. Biblical scholars suggest these gifts are symbolic to the roles in which Christ would find Himself. Gold is considered a gift fit for a king. Jesus would be a leader and a king, but not in the worldly sense. Frankincense was used in the incense of the Jewish temple, showing Jesus to be a future priest of the covenant. It was also used to anoint newborns and people entering a new phase of life. Myrrh was similarly an incense and used to anoint kings and priests. It was also used as a perfume for a dead body, showing the symbolism of Christ's future death for the redemption of mankind. All of these gifts are found naturally occurring outside Judea. Frankincense is found in southern Arabia and eastern Africa. Myrrh is found in a wider expanse of the same area. Gold would have been most likely from Africa, but there are multiple known ancient gold deposits across Africa and the near east. It is clear the Magi, if they did come from the east, did not bring these gifts from their home countries as a representation of the naturally-occurring resources in them. What this says is that the Magi knew their gifts were important and expensive, fit for a king, and possibly even prophetic to Jesus' future as redeemer. It is clear that, even if the Magi did not know that these items played a big part in foretelling Jesus' life, they certainly were common gifts for kings, and used in Jewish rituals, both of which fit their understanding of Jesus as the new king of the Jews.


Conclusion

It's important to recognize the context of the coming of the Magi, and how it informs the current human race. Like all Biblical stories, we are asked to take some things on faith. There is no way to know what exactly made the Magi make their journey. They cared enough about leadership of the Jewish people to take a long journey in order to worship a new king. Certainly, they had faith in their reasoning to do so. They were also not afraid to bring kingly gifts to this new king, even if the present rulers of the country were troubled by the news. It mimics the attitude that all should have when seeking Jesus in our lives today. We should be certain of our reasons for worship, go boldly regardless of stops along the way, continue to follow Him until you find Him, and bring gifts that might be used for the best of the body of Christ.

~ Buzz

Burial Rituals and White-Washed Tombs

"In Memoriam" is a common epitaph written on tombstones. Meaning, "Into Memory" in Latin, the meaning of this small phrase is different for particular people. Because memory of someone is unique, the memories of a buried loved one can bring many different emotions to light. With the recent remembrance of D-Day and the Memorial Day holiday not long past, my mind was thinking about cemeteries and how cultures remember the dead. I had a similar thought last Summer when I went to take pictures of Allegheny Cemetery in the Lawrenceville neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Created in 1844, it is one of the largest (300 acres) and oldest cemeteries west of the Appalachian Mountains. 

Monument at Allegheny Cemetery

From an early age, I had a morbid fascination with cemeteries. Maybe it was the arches and statues,maybe it was the idea that so many people have died in the millennia that humanity has existed, but for some reason I was always enjoyed looking at them from the car window. However, this did not translate to many visits as a kid. Even in my adult life, I have only visited 4 cemeteries (2 of those being in foreign countries). Nonetheless, I am still fascinated by them. It was in Allegheny Cemetery last Summer that I remembered a thought I had about the reasons we bury our dead. Sure, there are practical reasons, such as predation and disease, but our particular beliefs sometimes makes a huge difference in the way or the importance placed upon our burial.

 

The Faith

The Christian faith has various rituals for the dead. In the Roman Catholic church, the priest has a set way to bless and honor the dead body (Last Rites). Many families choose to have a religious service before burying the deceased. This includes a eulogy and a viewing. These are an act of closure for the family and friends of the deceased. This regiment is a way to say goodbye and pray for comfort of those who mourn for the deceased (Matthew 5:4). Sometimes the deceased person is cremated after the funeral and the urn is given to the family to be placed somewhere, whether that's in the ground, in the family home, or in a mausoleum. It truly is a sad event.

Allegheny Cemetery Monuments

That stands in stark contrast to my feelings about the monuments and pinnacles erected to the dead in the cemeteries. I could not help but feel like it was more than a little wasteful. Do not misunderstand me; I still enjoyed the grand marble sculptures and stone structures. The tombstone reliefs, personal mausoleums, and monuments are beautiful and impressive. But I could not help to think, "Does it do anything for the dead?" The answer is assuredly. "No." The dead do not need their body anymore. It is an empty vessel. The body returns to dust from which it was made (Genesis 3:19). It's a simple fact that the burial is not for the deceased but for the grieving loved ones still living. This is not a post about wasteful spending on funerary practices or the price of coffins, but it was just an observation I made while admiring the hundred-year-old monuments at Allegheny Cemetery. 

All of the white, grand, and impressive stone tombs reminded me of when Christ warned us of becoming saintly just in appearance, but inwardly sinful.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs,which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27 ESV) 

Jesus is not really talking about tombs, as if creating a resting place for the body was a bad thing. Even making the tomb white and gleaming is not wrong but His meaning is metaphorical. We as Christians are not to become hypocrites, saying we follow the Lord with our outward appearance, but not believing it or embracing it within ourselves. This excerpt is one of a few of Jesus' criticisms of those that do good things for the crowd (or just to be noticed) but not for the glory of God.

The Weird

We today get many practices and beliefs about the dead from our predecessors in the Ancient world. Similar to a modern practice, the Ancient Romans would often cremate the body after an elaborate cleansing ritual and a long funeral procession. They would even hire professional mourners, women who would wail and scream, to properly honor the dead loved one. The body would have a coin placed in or on the mouth in order to pay 'Charon' the ferryman of the River Styx. He would take the dead person's soul to the underworld to rest for eternity.

Frederica's epitaph reads, "Anima Allegra" Italian for "Cheerful Soul"

Many of our Christian burial practices and beliefs have changed little from a thousand year ago. There are catacombs, tunnels in the ground for the disposal of the dead, dug by subsequent generations of Greeks, Romans, and Christians. It seems that during the early modern period, Romans started to like burial better than cremation on the basis that it helps loved ones to reach closure when looking at the corpse rather than at "silent ash". It seems that the beliefs had shifted to humans needing their bodies after death, similar to the Egyptian beliefs of the afterlife. Indeed, Dante Alighieri, a Christian poet in the 14th century, writes his divine comedy with very real consequences for the bodies of those who have died. Just read more than a couple Cantos of his "Inferno" and you will cringe at the thought of ever living a life outside of God's grace and forgiveness. The Egyptian practice of encasing the body in a sarcophagus traveled throughout the ancient world and became popular while catacombs and stand alone mausoleums were constructed. Through that practice, we get the modern idea of a coffin. With this, many cultures gave offerings or placed valuables with the deceased to use in the afterlife. One notable instance is with the Vikings. Though they burned the King at sea in a boat, he took A LOT with him! Another culture that placed offerings/valuables with the dead is once again the Egyptians. That is how we all know the name of a 20-something year old minor King of Egypt in the New Kingdom period. In case you wonder who that is, it is of course Pharaoh Tutankhamen. The idea that the dead "deserved" to be buried with some of their personal possessions comes from these ancient cultures. It is almost a superstitious idea that the dead will need the things they had when they lived. 

Allegheny Cemetery Monument

We know, as Christians, that the need for the body after death is nonexistent. But that does not stop the practice of some long-held traditions and beliefs when it comes to caring for the dead. In the same way the ancient peoples would sing stories about the heroes and ancestors of their tribe, so we keep our dead in special/reverent places that we can visit and reminisce about their lives. It is the way we honor the dead and acknowledge their life as one life that is cherished. It highlights our culture's reverence for life and the value of the human being that is no longer here.

I believe that the monuments to the dead are quite hauntingly beautiful. It is for those reasons that we take the care to immortalize our dead.

Notice the Egyptian Obelisk on the right.

If you have the misfortune of having a cherished loved one pass away, you can take comfort that they will be a part of burial traditions spanning centuries. From the Roman funeral procession, to the Egyptian sarcophagus, and superstition of needing your possessions for the afterlife, your loved one will be in grand company.

~ Buzz

Calendars and New Year's Resolutions

Around this time of year you'll find many people joining gyms and going on diets. Many people like to dedicate the new year to a cause in their personal lives that they have neglected. Many people just like to "start fresh" and begin something new starting a new year. But January 1st isn't special outside of the importance we put on it. The new year could start at any time. January 1st could be just the start of a new month and have nothing important assigned to it. In certain countries, the new year doesn't start on January 1st. Have you ever heard of Chinese New Year? What about Orthodox New Year? Those calendars run on separate days from the Western calendar, called the Gregorian Calendar. As such, many people would not assign any special significance to the day most of the people in the U.S. start their personal resolutions. Largely, the fact we assign any significance to the January start of the month is because of the Catholic Christian faith.

The Faith

For centuries, well before humans had a written language, villagers would track the movement of the moon and the stars to keep time. They would plant crops and prepare themselves for the weather of the seasons by the Lunar calendar. But as we know today, that calendar is imperfect. The Lunar calendar has 354 days, and would be adjusted into other calendars over the years so that the seasons would happen at the same time in the calendar. The most accurate calendar from antiquity would be the Julian Calendar, named for Julius Caesar, who instituted it in 45 BC. When the Christian faith became legal in the Roman Empire, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD calculated holy days based on the Julian Calendar. Over the centuries, however, the calendar went out of date from the actual Solar calendar, which is based on the revolving of the Earth around the sun. Eventually, this would cause problems with the seasons occurring earlier and earlier every year (by fractions of a day, but it would happen). Pope Gregory XIII decided to change the Catholic calendar to more adequately represent the Solar year in 1582. As such, the date gave a sudden skip, changing from October 4, 1582, a Thursday, to October 15, 1582, a Friday. The Gregorian Calendar, as it is known today, still keeps time for most of the Western world and the U.S. This change was done primarily to keep the Holy Days where they were supposed to be, according to research and the Jewish calendar.

The Weird

The assigning of dates is sorta arbitrary in this day and age. In the early civilizations, the calendar helped to track seasons and resulted in successful harvests, festivals, and generally keep order. Outside of the religious implications in our Gregorian Calendar, the dates don't necessarily matter because we know other methods to determine harvest time, planting time, etc. It really just exists as an easy way to plan for the future and record the past. January 1st becomes a date of significance, even though it doesn't hold any other power outside of being the arbitrary placement of the new year. For instance, the Byzantine calendar starts on September 1. The Fiscal year starts at various times depending on the company and the country. The day itself does not hold any significance outside of what we assign to it.

If you believe/celebrate the new Year on January 1st, then you assign it importance and meaning. That's why people associate it with new beginning, new life, new decisions. I bet someone who reads this will know of someone who was proposed to on New Years Day. My point is that you can start something wonderful on any day. It doesn't have to be January 1st. It can be the start of the school year, your birthday, today! Why wait to do something for the betterment of your own life?

Have a Happy New Year! ~ Buzz

"Black Santa" and the Tradition of Santa Claus

There has been big news over the last week and a half about a show host on FOX news saying that Santa and Jesus were White. Moreover, that these characters are both historically accurate and verifiable in those descriptions. Now, I won't get into the fact that this is a horribly close-minded view of Christmas and Christian history, or that anyone with half a brain would know that Jesus was Jewish and of the Semitic peoples of the Near East (hence, non-white). My purpose for writing this post (my first in a year) is to highlight the issue of assigning race/ethnicity to any culturally important figure, whether they are fictional or historical or both. And as I always try to do on this yearly (hopefully soon monthly) blog, I will give you the faith-filled side of the story, then give you the weird stuff, with 'weird' used loosely because anything interesting to me has to be slightly odd or unknown.

The Faith

 

Most people know Santa's many names, such as Father Christmas and Kris Kringle, so it should be no surprise to most that one of his other common names, St. Nick, is based on a 4th Century Saint by the name of Nicholas. He lived as a Greek bishop in the city of Myra, a small Roman town in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) at a time when the Roman Emperor Diocletian persecuted all Christians.

St. Nicholas was definitely a badass (in a strictly Christian way)

Because he defied the authorities, Nicholas spent much time in jail for his "crimes". When Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal in the early 4th century, Nicholas was free to continue his leadership of the local churches and many miracles are attributed to him. His feast day in the Catholic and Orthodox Christian religions is December 6, the day he died in 343AD. This day is still celebrated by religious peoples because of the many stories about St. Nicholas "The Wonder-worker", totally separate from the Santa Claus mythos.

One such story serves as the basis for the Santa character's love of children and his gift-giving tendencies.

A poor man had three daughters but could not afford a proper dowry for them. In absence of any other possible employment, the daughters would have to become prostitutes. Hearing of the girls' plight, Nicholas decided to help them. With Nicholas being too modest to help the family in public (or to save them the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to the house under the cover of night. He threw one purse filled with gold coins through the window opening into the house for the daughter that was to come of age the next day. Over a period of three years, Nicholas sent his purse of gold through their window the night before one of the daughters would come of age. In the third year the father tried to discover the identity of their benefactor. The father confronted Nicholas, only to have Nicholas say it is not him the father should thank, but God alone.

Because of this story, and a few others about his rescue/resurrection of children, St. Nicholas had a fair following in the churches up until the Protestant Reformation. Through the Middle Ages, St. Nicholas took on some aspects of pagan gods, gaining a big white beard and the ability to fly. Because of St. Nicholas, children were taught to say their prayers and do good deeds. Because of the veneration of Saints deemed unholy in the new Protestant churches, and with the tradition of gift-giving at the end of the year firmly established in the Christian world, the Baby Jesus took the place of St. Nicholas. But because his image as a fatherly but robust and even scary figure, Baby Jesus could not fully take the place of St. Nick on Christmas night. So he was given a helper.

The Weird

 

Baby Jesus gave the gifts, but in Germany and across Europe his scary sidekick "Ru-Klaus" or "Pelznickel" would act as the guy dishing out punishment to bad children and did all the grunt work for the infantile Jesus.

 Pelznickel, after murdering every furry thing in the forest.

But some families, especially those in the Netherlands, didn't want to follow the changeover to Baby Jesus. They kept on with their traditions of the gift-bringing "Sinterklaas" and these traditions found their way to America centuries later. In poems and books written in the early 19th century, American writers remade Nicholas (and by extension, Santa Claus) by giving him a flying wagon and gifts to deliver to all good girls and boys (along with switches to the bad ones). In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote, "A Visit From St. Nicholas," which I'm sure you can remember by its first line, "Twas the night before Christmas". St. Nicholas started to gather characteristics of all gift-givers from Christmas traditions across Europe, such as the shaggy furs from Ru-Klaus and the immortality of Baby Jesus. In other poems, stories, and pictures, we get the descriptions of Santa Claus as various as you can imagine. Eventually, by the end of the 19th century, we get the familiar description of Santa that has endured to today. Jolly, fat, white-bearded old man with a red suit with a sack over his shoulder filled with toys (or just a fat, white-bearded car salesmen if you believe Chevy).

The Character of Santa Claus

Thomas Nast's Traditional Image of Santa.

 

My point is that the image of Santa Claus has always been changing and is relative to the traditions of the area in which you decide to celebrate Christmas. Saint Nicholas, although he is the historical basis for the myth of Santa Claus, is not a direct representation of him and never will be. Otherwise we would probably have a grey-bearded, olive-skinned, definitely thin Santa, dressed in bishop's vestments and carrying a Bible. Even that 'historically accurate' representation of St. Nicholas would be off, just because we know only so much about him. What's important to understand is why the myth has become what it is today, and why it is foolish to argue against other representations of such a character. We know the modern image of Santa has little to do with the historical St. Nick. The Tradition in Christian homes (and most American homes) is to celebrate Christmas and Santa, as he is represented currently, as a white man. That doesn't mean all homes in America or the World should adopt such a representation of their Christmas gift-giver, and it allows those from differing ethnic and social backgrounds to adapt Santa to something they are familiar with. Does this mean there can be a Black Santa? Yes, and Macy's agrees.

A mythical figure can have a traditional image, but the society in which he exists is allowed to dictate that image. Just because writers from 19th century America said he had rosy cheeks and pearly white skin doesn't mean he will stay that way. However, don't go crazy thinking about Santa suddenly becoming a thin Indian man with black hair driving a Mercedes. The commercialization of such a character means he is likely to stay in the traditional image for the foreseeable future (if he was anything else, customers wouldn't recognize him). Throughout history there are examples of folktales or folk heroes changing nationalities, ethnicity, sizes, and shapes to fit the society in which they existed. Folktales and stories propagate by story-telling, and in the telling of stories outside of modern technology, Kindles, and record-keeping, "facts" of the story change.

'Historical' Santa

The historical Santa wasn't named 'Santa' at all. Is that something we need to change or argue against? No, because the 'historical' Santa is not the character that gives gifts to good girls and boys on Christmas Eve. And because of that, I think there can be a Black Santa, the same reason there can be an Indian Santa, a Chinese Santa, etc. The inclusion of the many nationalities and skin colors is what makes the tradition strong in the eyes of the people celebrating it. It is not something a culture owns and patents as 'verifiable fact'. The culture adapts the tradition to include the society in which the tradition is being practiced. This is what happened in early 19th century America, adapting and combining a Christian religious figure with gift-giving tendencies, the German helpers of Baby Jesus on Christmas night, and the Dutch Sinterklaas into Santa Claus. Perhaps, in the next couple centuries, writers, artists, and poets in our society will dictate that a new image for Santa Claus become the norm.

Have a Merry Christmas!

~ Buzz

Further reading/source: St. Nicholas to Santa

The Origin of Christmas

I hear people all the time getting offended and political about "Happy Holidays" and other affronts to Christmas. Christmas is predominately a Christian (religious) holiday, but in the US (and other parts of the world) it has taken on a culture of its own. As much as it is a religious holiday, it is a cultural holiday. But, in the effort to not offend the minority that do not celebrate it, the malls and retail stores go out of their way to say they include everyone with their "Happy Holidays" greeting. I don't care so much for it, but I won't go out of my way to yell and scream about an attack on the Christian faithful at Christmastime. Christmas itself is a bastardization of many traditions and holidays that includes so much, saying "Merry Christmas" should be all that you need.



The Faith

As I wrote last year on the subject, Christmas is the celebration of God becoming a man in Jesus Christ. As I wrote then, such as now, the believability of the event is questioned by some.

"some cannot believe a being will give up Godly powers in order to become a lowly man, subject to the whims of nature...They simply do not believe Jesus was God and man."

Regardless of the believability, there are those that have faith in this story and celebrate it as the first coming of their Lord and Savior into the world to save them from their sins. If you didn't already know, I am one of them.

Showing that faith in celebration of the Christmas holiday, we give gifts to one another to show that Christ is the ultimate gift to us from God. We decorate with lights and candles to show that Christ is the 'light of the world'. We sing songs and gather with family to celebrate the most important things in life. By faith we believe that Christ came to save us from damnation for our sins.

Therefore, Christmas is very much a joyous occasion and one that is central to the Christian religion. Without the virgin birth of a son conceived by the Holy Spirit to a descendent of David (the king of Israel a thousand years prior, as well as a man blessed by God) then there is no Christianity. Sure, he could have gone on to do miracles. But the story behind his coming, and his fulfillment of prophecies (which I spoke about last year) make Him the savior of the world. Even if you can't accept that, you should at least accept that when people are celebrating Jesus' birth that they might be offended if you don't share their enthusiasm... or in a greater sense of arrogance or insensitivity, get offended yourself when you are wished a "Merry Christmas".

The Weird

The traditions of celebration brought out at Christmastime are in many ways pagan and inclusive of the practices of cultures/religions not of Christian origin. For instance, the date of Christ's birth has been debated for centuries. Most people think it was actually in the fall, but no one can know for sure. Even when counting the census (spoken of most extensively in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2) the date and time of year hasn't be reliably determined.

The date of Christmas (December 25) coincides with the date of a feast in the Roman religion at the time of Jesus. It was called natalis Invicti or 'the festival of the unconquered sun'. It was also considered the birthday of the sun - dies natalis solis invicti. This was a festival like others in ancient Rome, with parties, gift-giving, wine, singing, and dancing.

Some have postulated that early Christians chose to celebrate Jesus' birth because of the name of the celebration (Unconquered 'Son' rather than 'sun') and as a direct conflict with the festival. They wanted to replace it in importance. With the festival being held even after the Christian religion became the official religion in the empire, it was undoubtedly an important cultural celebration.

Other Christmas traditions and folklore have their origin in surprising places. The Christmas Tree has its origin in Germanic tribes bringing green branches into their homes in the hope that spring would come soon.

Called the 'Yule Tree' it was brought into the house during the 2 month festival of Yule, which began in November. This festival (and ones like it) tried to capture the last bit of life from the dead world of winter. Candles on the tree (as well as the modern day electric lights) symbolize the effort to light up the world during the darkest months of the year.


The legend of Saint Nicolas, if you don't already know from some Christmas carols, is the inspiration for Santa Claus. In fact, the idea was almost completely translated from St. Nick's Greek origins to the Dutch Sinterklaas. A 4th century saint (and real life Bishop of Myra), he gave gifts to the less fortunate.


Christmas: The Cultural Holiday

Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, it is important to know that the traditions and spirit of Christmas is very much inclusive and multicultural. Just covering a couple traditions of Christmas (the day, the tree, Santa) I've brought in ideas from the Roman Empire, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, and the early Christians. The Spirit of Christmas is found in the Christ child, in the giving of St. Nick, in the Christmas tree, and in the lights that brighten the darkness of the winter. In these things, we find the origin of the holiday we call Christmas.

~ Buzz

For further reading/searching:

Christmas Element Have Pagan Roots - Discovery Video
Searching for the Real Birthday of Jesus
Christmas' Origins in Faith

Eternity, Time, and God

I enjoy watching shows on the Science channel, specifically 'Through the Wormhole' and not just because Morgan Freeman is the perfect narrator for everything... It's because of the really far-out-there questions the show asks of scientists and by extension, their viewers. In one of the recent episodes, astrophysicists and other scientific minds were working on measuring time and eternity, asking the question, "Does Eternity End?" Basically, the show finds scientists arguing their beliefs based on various methods of measurement and observation, and therefore drawing their own conclusions to the question at hand.

Most of the people on the show tend to be astrophysicists, meaning they work on the physical interactions of the bodies in the universe, such as stars and planets. They will sometimes work with subatomic particles in space and in stars. These subatomic particles are named so because they are smaller than an atom(the building block of all matter) and therefore exist in the atom or between atoms (Ex. Electrons and Protons you probably heard about in chemistry class or astronomy class).
 To save time and my fingers, I'll refer to astrophysicists as just 'scientists' throughout this post.

A scientist will argue that Newton's laws of motion (the foundation of physics) should apply to all things, including time and eternity. One of those laws states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if there was nothing at the "beginning" of time, then there could never be something out of that nothing, disproving the 'big bang theory' (not like the tv show, which is a favorite of mine). I put "beginning" in quotes because scientists are finding it hard to quantify (measure) time when going back to the big bang/beginning or going forward to the theoretical end of time/existence.

In our society, we've segmented time into equal measures, second, minutes, hours, etc. to help us interact with one another and make plans. In a more cognitive approach, we've symbolized time as a line, moving in one direction (not like the band) from the past to the future. We, as a society, have an abstract idea of time, going in an order and allowing ourselves to be nostalgic and remember our lives in the past. When we think about our lives, time stretches from our birth to our death on a timeline like a facebook page.

But scientists turn that idea on its head, because if time were on a line, then time would have had to begin and that means that time would have to end...but with the theory of quantum mechanics (the study of the movement of the subatomic particles) shows that scientists can never be certain of the location or interaction of subatomic particles because they don't have solid walls. Meaning that scientists cannot say if the particles touched each other, or a particle could be there or not there at all at the same time. If you apply quantum mechanics to larger objects such as people or planets, then you can say you were sitting on the couch now and you say you weren't sitting on the couch at the same time. This uncertainty is ludicrous to normal physics and observation, but with quantum mechanics, it's important enough to basically through time out the window.
Time doesn't exist, we as a people made it up to measure our world. BUT, if it is made up by humans, then does it mean all existence always was? And are the predictions or calculations giving basis to theories of beginning and end just foolish?
Albert Einstein believed space (matter, stars, energy) is intertwined with time. So then when space began in the big bang, time began also (quantum theory allows for a spontaneous existence of a particle out of nothing - another post perhaps sometime in the future). So maybe Einstein was right, or could he be wrong in his understanding of space-time? Because time (as far as we know) hasn't changed, but it's clear according to the big bang theory, space has changed. This scientist argues that perhaps time existed outside of space/matter and therefore, time will be here for eternity...

Another scientist in the show believes that, if given enough time, all things will happen. The quantum theory, as I said before, allows for spontaneous particles to become real out of nothing. So if the observations and theories say that space will eventually be eaten up by black holes and all matter will disappear, then (because dark energy will still be there in a small amount) eventually a particle will appear and continue for infinity... until a new big bang begins the universe again and there would be a new YOU, which would make your life now add up to nothing.

Another scientist believes there is what's called a multiverse, which means we can only see so far to the edge of our universe (where light shows us) and there are other multiverses exist outside of us. Using some complex mathematics and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, the theory works out to say that eventually our universe will decay just like the others in the multiverse and there is nothing we can do about it. Although this theory doesn't address the problems brought up in the first theory (if time began, where did it come from?) it's an interesting thought. So, according to this one scientist, the universe will end and time will end (as we know it in our observable universe.)

Yet another scientist gives the theory that our universe is like a holographic projection far away from us. We are traveling towards an existence that has always existed, but our observation of time is as if we are far away from the universe and we cannot see all things. So our observations would travel closer to the true universe, and time is a measure of distance from the holographic projection. It explains how our universe came from nothing, because we would be so far away from the projection to see anything, but it was still there (just out of sight).

Finally, we get down right weird...What if the future determines our present along with our past? Another scientist does tests on particle behavior, measuring them and observing them. With quantum mechanics, there is the uncertainty again. Scientists cannot accurately measure where a particle is at any one time. When they looked at particles at 2o'clock and measured only a couple at 2:30, they found that those they measured at the beginning corresponded to particles behaving in the same manner at 2. Therefore, saying that because they saw the particle at 2:30, those particles acted in a certain way at 2. Basically, proving that the future decision of observing those particles would determine how they acted in the present. Freaky! But applying anything from quantum mechanics to the larger world has problems, but this proves that the future decisions can influence the present just as much as the past. So, time has a destiny and so we have a destiny...

The last scientist covered in the show calculated the most information humans could ever learn or obtain. It was a large number, 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 90. That's 10 with 10 zeroes times 90 zeroes. He calculated the theoretical size of the universe and the measurement of how much we would have to know to a number of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. If we had a machine to measure this information, we could only get to the first number, leaving out a very, very large number. If you tried to write out that number, writing a zero every second, you would run out of time. The laws of physics prevent us from measuring everything, because the machines necessary to measure it all would be so massive that it would collapse the universe into a black hole. So, he says why bother trying? Haha...

Now to my real purpose for this post...My belief in God allows for a few of these theories to work. For instance, the measurement of all knowledge shows us how far away we could ever be from knowing everything. So how could we know all that God knows?
Working backwards, the theories on the future and the past working together in the present makes me think of how God orders our steps. Our present is affected by the future we are meant to live.
The theory about the holographic projection, meaning that the universe always existed and our observations of it exist in time, allow for God to exist, because no one ever created Him.
The second and third theory talking about all of the time in eternity creating all possibilities (and possibly multiverses), no one can disprove it. We can never know if there are other universes because we cannot obverse them (at least, with scientific instruments). And since it's theoretically possible because of quantum physics, it's a mathematically sound theory. But, as I said, the theory about all time existing into eternity and the multiverse theory don't answer the question of where time began. Where did the multiverse come from? When did it start? Time, and by extension, God can exist outside of these theories.

The best theory I see is the first theory. Even though it disproves Einstein, theoretically, if time and space are intertwined, then time must have changed along with space, and there is no evidence of that. Time can go on forever, because I know there is another plane of existence outside of the observable universe, and God exists there as well as here in our world (through experience, and only in the physical for about 33 years). God orders our steps, affecting our present and leading us toward our future.

~ Buzz

Dear Editor

I wrote a response to a nationally syndicated columnist, lecturer, and TV commentator tonight. Cal Thomas, a conservative writer by what I can determine through his articles, was talking about Evangelical pastors endorsing Rick Santorum for President, even though he is Catholic. The article is titled, 'Not by Sight, but by Faith' but I'm not sure if you can find it anywhere on the internet.
Mr. Thomas' article quickly degenerated into an attack on Evangelicals, for whatever reason, and included Tim Tebow because he is an out-spoken Christian athlete. He used several scriptures to back up his points that the Kingdom of God is best when hidden or invisible, that Christians should not pray or display their faith in public, and that Christians are insecure about their faith because they want a Christian president.

God forbid that we as Christians would want a Christian leader for our country.

Anyway, I decided that since I argued so well against his column, nearly point for point, that I should share it with anyone that's out there to read it. Cheers!



"Dear Mr. Thomas,
I have read your articles for several years and I have enjoyed them for the most part. You tend to write about controversial topics, so I imagine you get some hate mail. This email is an attempt to correct you, much like a newspaper lists corrections after a date or time gets misreported. I say these things with respect and hope you will take them to heart.

I am afraid that aside from your reference to Matthew 6, you have grossly missed the meaning behind the scripture verses you quoted in your most recent article. Those scriptures you used to back up your point that the kingdom of God is best when invisible or hidden are not talking about the Kingdom being hidden at all. Being a writer, I am sure you know what a simile is... Here's the one scripture:

Matthew 13:44, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field." NIV

The kingdom is "LIKE a treasure hidden in a field." Emphasis of course, in the word 'like' which designates the use of a literary term known as a simile. Jesus was talking about the extraordinary worth of the kingdom, hence the man buys the field in which the kingdom resides. It's valuable. Jesus makes the point to cherish it more than all of your possessions. He says to value it and be joyous in finding it...Your possessions are made meaningless next to the Kingdom of Heaven.
You miss the meaning again with your reference to Mark 4:30-32:

³⁰ Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? ³¹ It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. ³² Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.” NIV

The point is not that the Kingdom is best small "like a mustard seed" (another simile)...On the contrary, it grows to become massive and becomes the largest of all garden plants. Using these verses without context and against what they mean is misleading and dangerous to those who read your column. But I suppose it may not be your fault:

Mark 4:33-34

 ³³ With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. ³⁴ He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. NIV


I suggest that when using Scripture that you pray about it's usage and it's meaning before using it to attack the faithful... speaking of which...

Tim Tebow is just doing what he would normally do by praying before, during, or after a game...it's the media who publicize it. As a Christian, I should be happy that Tim Tebow is taking his time in the spotlight to serve God's purposes (that is, "¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20).
In the interviews and press conferences, Tim is just living up to what Jesus has told him to do,
⁸ “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8) 
I assure you, that's said with the context to support it. With your use of Matthew 6 talking about the hypocrites, it is a mistake to apply that to Tim Tebow because the scripture is talking about motivation, not action. It's as if you were saying that all people who pray in a church are automatically hypocrites, because others can see them do it. The scripture is meant for those that seek for others to see them, to show off basically (showing pride, selfishness, etc.). They get their reward because what they are seeking is not the answer to their prayers; it is the attention, pride, and satisfaction they get by being watched while they are supposedly being 'holy'.

When Tim Tebow has doing things to bring awareness to the Christian faith, and to Jesus Christ, he is doing what we all should do. It is not insecurity for which we cheer him on. Christians seek to have their faith in the public eye because that's where it should be! It's a mistake to put your faith in some locked-away cabinet of your life, only to be shown on Christmas and Easter. Your faith defines you, whether it is a strong faith in Jesus Christ or a strong faith in science, human nature, etc. It penetrates every facet of life, so why not when you are put on display? Tim Tebow is turning an overly selfish, greed-driven sport into a testament of his own faith, and I can't help but appreciate and support that. His football team beat my favorite, the Pittsburgh Steelers, so maybe my comments about him should have more meaning with you knowing my loyalties... As an Evangelical Christian, it is his duty to live up to what Jesus says in Matthew 28. We as Christians are supposed to share our faith with others, so they might see how Jesus is the savior and the only one, the only idea/thing/being, worth following.
As a Christian, it is his duty to pray for those in power to use it as God wills. I haven't seen him make any public endorsements of candidates, and I don't think he ever will. What Christians want is for our country's leaders to reflect Jesus as the idea that drives us to work, supports our laws, and enacts justice. It is not an easy task, for any man to be asked to do that, but Christians hope for a man in the highest office in the land to have his moral center resting in Jesus Christ. We would like to avoid repeating the mistakes of all of those self-indulgent empires that have failed in the past. That failure would not be possible if Jesus Christ was the greatest adviser to our president. I've prayed for President Obama, and all elected officials (as has my church and all my Christian friends), but that doesn't mean I don't want someone else in office who more accurately reflects Christ's mission on our planet and in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a theocracy established in America...forcing my faith on others would miss the point and block the ability of the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives in order to help them to have a conversion of heart. No one does anything for the goodness of God by forcing someone to believe in something they do not believe. As I said, that misses the point. For it is God who saves our souls, not the missionary. I can force someone to say they believe in God and force them to follow His commands, but if they do not believe, then they are not saved. As I said before, what good is that?
I've started to ramble to make my point, so I'll stop here and hope you'll forgive me. To take Scripture out of context to serve your own purposes is a mistake, and I pray that you can correct it. For if you believe that Jesus is your Savior, then you have brothers and sisters of faith in the evangelical churches. I hope you have taken this email to heart, and if you have read it with an open mind, you can come to understand how the Kingdom of God is meant to be wonderful, huge, and valuable beyond measure.

God Bless you,

Michael Schellhammer"

Emphasis added for the blog, cause I like it that way. . . The Truth is Out There.