The Byzantine historian Procopius (circa 490-555) was author of a History of Justinian's Wars against the Persians, Vandals and Goths, and a book about Justinian's buildings (Hagia Sophia!), but he also wrote a pamphlet against Justinian and his wife Theodora. Procopius, who presumably knew his noble lord well, described Justinian as proud, hypocritical, unrighteous, malicious, cruel and bloodthirsty.
Christian interpreters of history like to deviate from Procopius's description. Naturally! For Justinian was canonized like the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius.
What happened at the Council?
The Greek ecclesiastical writer. Origen (circa 185-254), a teacher in the catechists' school at Alexandria, was the most important theologian in Christian antiquity and the first advocate of a critical examination of the Bible. With the help of his Platonic training he had to some extent made the scriptures intelligible and spiritualized them by allegorical interpretations. The Council condemned his deviations and said his exegeses were unorthodox. What was to be orthodox in future was exclusively determined by the leaders of the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost. When this decision was taken by the Council, persecution was not confined to Origen's numerous followers; the view halloo! to hunt all the other dissenters was also sounded.
(About this time the ring which bishops wear became a symbol of 'marriage' to the Church. A strange union, in my opinion, between man and Holy Ghost.)
The Bible is not 'God's word'. Moreover, the dogmas concocted at the first five councils) by an army of princes of the church are not inspired by the Holy Ghost - in spite of the participants' supposed charisma. This comes as a severe shock to the average religious layman, because he is usually unprepared for it. What is left?
What is the truth about Jesus? Did he exist? Did he bleed to death on the Cross for our sins? Did he really preach what is recorded in the New Testament? And if the texts put into the mouth of Jesus are not by him, where did the 1,500 copies of the 'original text' originate from? Something must have happened. One single figure out of many who were crucified could not kindle and support such a colossal cult of personality. Clever heads were at work.
There are thousands of books about Jesus of Nazareth. Versions of the story of Jesus based on the latest research have recently been published by authors such as Johannes Leh-mann [8], Joel Carmichael [9] and Rudolf Augstein [10]. Naturally these critics of misleading interpretations of Jesus are contradicted by the theological party, yet when one analyses the prevarications of the group of authors [11] writing about Augstein's Jesus Menschensohn, one recognizes only the time-honoured technique that Joachim Kahl called 'camouflage'.
Christian theologians make the dogma of Jesus - the established religious doctrine with the claim to unconditional validity, the unproved proposition [12] - the salient point of the Christian religion. Even that seems understandable, if rash, to me, because the hundreds of thousands of pastors of all the Christian churches would lose their jobs and their personal raison d'etre if they could no longer act in the name of Jesus. To be honest they would have to say to the little man in the seventeenth row of the Jesus of Nazareth was not 'God's only begotten son' and that he himself never pretended that he was.
In fact, it would be asking a lot to expect such a pronouncement from the pulpit. What then was the real Jesus like?
Rudolf Augstein [13] asks: '... with what right do the Christian churches refer to a Jesus who did not exist in the form they claim, to doctrines which he did not teach to an absolute authority which he did not confer and to an affiliation with God which he never laid claim to.'
These are no novelties to the initiated, but I am addressing the ignorant, the laymen, who neither know nor understand theological double-Dutch. Once again, I am taking it on my broad back to translate professorial wisdom into generally intelligible language - knowing perfectly well what a sound thrashing by Christian specialists awaits me. It is not in my nature simply to believe 'par ordre du mufti'.
The wisdom of theologians has been printed in hundreds of thousands of books which can be found in archives and libraries. So that everyone can understand me, I must begin at the beginning.
For nearly two thousand years now the Christian has been given an unbearable burden to carry on his way through life: he is inflicted with original sin from birth and he needs the 'Redeemer' to free himself from it.
We all learnt in school and church that God was the beginning and end of everything, alpha and omega, that God was almighty, infinitely good, all-righteous, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal.
So far I accept the concept of God without reservations. But because he is eternal God is also timeless: he knows no yesterday, today or tomorrow. Eternal and omnipresent God does not need to await the results of his measures. He does not need to ask how they are going to turn out, for he already knows the answer.
In my Catholic school I listened attentively to the charming story of how God in his goodness made two harmless creatures a present of a stay in Paradise, the home of joy and happiness. Adam and Eve, the chosen ones, lived a carefree-existence. They lacked nothing and they had no desires or longings.
There was only one thing that was strictly forbidden them by God the Father. They must not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. It was the first case of 'Off limits'!
We are nonplussed. Why did the Almighty make this strict prohibition? Did he enjoy this kindergarten for the first people on earth? Could God share the human happiness which Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden of Eden, since he, the sublime, stood high above mankind? Why did he want to keep
'knowledge' from his first-created children?
Theologians have an answer. God wanted to 'bestow love' on them and wished that they should both
'partake' of his kingdom. For heavens' sake! According to that interpretation. God is supposed to have yearned for love ... and to have felt lonely. In my opinion, those are not feelings that befit God, for he of all people is boundlessly happy in his omnipotence. An intermediate condition - 'A little love might be nice' or 'It's boring, playmates wouldn't be a bad idea' - does not exist for an exclusive God. So what was he trying to achieve with his humans in Paradise?
Again, theologians have the answer pat. God wanted to lead Adam and Eve into temptation, he wanted to test them. That doesn't wash, reverend gentlemen. What kind of low opinion have they of God?
'Temptation and 'testing' would be mere cardsharper's tricks, since he, the omniscient, must have known the results of the temptation beforehand. Now suppose we play with the idea that they did not, having free will, eat the apple. What would have happened if they had not recognized their shameful nakedness - and with it the possibility of procreation? Would God have had to create more and more human beings - on the assembly-line system? People, who, thanks to their free will, would not have striven for 'knowledge', because they obediently observed God's ban? God obviously had the 'Fall' in his calculations, because he was omniscient. Otherwise many countries in the world would not be bursting at the seams with overpopulation today.
Adam and Eve did not pluck the apple from the bough casually. There was a tempter. the devil or snake. But every created thing conies from God. At least, that's what we've learnt. So that logically the devil (or snake) is also a product of God. Was our benevolent God so infamous as to create a devil or snake in order to deceive two innocents? And why is God so shocked after the vegetarian meal to find that from then on sin is ineradicable in his world? HE knew in advance exactly what would happen.
Theologists tug at my sleeve. It wasn't like that! Lucifer, the devil, they say, was a renegade in God's kingdom. A renegade in the kingdom of heaven? If the 'kingdom of heaven' equals bliss (as we are promised), there cannot be any opposition, rebels or renegades in it. Either - or. If God's kingdom guarantees the state of perfect happiness, Lucifer, would certainly not have had the idea of disobeying God. However, if absolute happiness did not exist there, it was because God was not almighty .enough to create such a state. Here, too, there is a weak point in the theologians' argument. They are unable either to dismiss the struggle between God and Lucifer or to motivate it logically. Before Lucifer approached the inhabitants of Paradise to tempt them, God must have known that his devilishness would succeed. And the business of Adam and Eve's 'free will' remains a kind of deus ex machina.
Even with the interpolation of Lucifer, the snake, Adam and Eve acted at the will and behest of almighty God.
To a man who takes the word that was taught him at its face value, the situation presents itself as follows. God did not live in a perfect heaven, for there was an opposition in it, Lucifer set to work in Paradise and egged on Adam and Eve to commit a sin which God knew was about to happen. Then the apple was eaten. Then came the crowning episode: (omniscient) God was so offended that, beside himself with wrath, he cursed the innocent
