My brief history of Jesus as told in the Gospels, Part 3 Luke

     Now we come to the Gospel According to Luke. 
I guess we should first establish who this Luke really was. And, what connection did he actually have to the events told in the book that bears his name. 
    With the help of Wikipedia:
     Luke was one of the Four Evangelists, who is accredited with writing the Gospels.  The early church fathers ascribed to him authorship of both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which would mean Luke, or people writing in his name, contributed over a quarter of the text of the New Testament, more than any other author. When one considers the amount of work contributed by Paul, it turns out that Luke and Paul wrote a lot of the New Testament. These are two People that never knew Jesus, nor witnessed any of the events they described.
     The New Testament mentions Luke briefly a few times, and the Pauline epistle to the Colossians refers to him as a physician (from Greek for 'one who heals'); thus he is thought to have been both a physician and a disciple of Paul. 
     Some commentators believe Luke was a gentile. To scholars who study this stuff, they contend that the Gospel of Luke is actually being directed at the Gentiles. Perhaps Paul and Luke came to the conclusion that spreading Christianity among the Jews was a losing proposition and decided that the Gentiles were a more fertile ground. It seems that John came to the same conclusion. It turns out they were right. 
     The Gospel of Luke does not name its author. The Gospel was not written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.
     The earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180, and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170.
     Luke at best, was a disciple to Paul, who himself never knew Jesus. Go figure how he became an authority on the birth, life and death of Jesus. Frankly, I think that Luke, or whoever, had a great imagination and a creative mind.
     The authors of Luke's tale begins with the birth of John the Baptist. It seems that in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a priest named Zacharias, had a wife, Elisabeth, who had no children. It says they were stricken in years. I.e. they were old.
    While he was burning incense at the temple, there appeared an angel standing on the right side of the incense alter. This shook Zacharias up a bit and he was afraid. Zacharias had been praying for a son and the angel said that his prayers had been heard and that his wife will bear him a son and you will call him John.
    Zacharias informed the angel that he and his wife were old. The angel informed Zacharias that he was Gabriel and to believe him, but to be silent until things come to pass. 
    Of course, Elisabeth conceived and hid herself for five months.
    Now, here it gets interesting: On the sixth month the angel, Gabriel, went in the city of Nazareth and came to a young virgin named Mary. She happened to be betrothed to Joseph, of the house of David. 
    The angel informed her that she had been chosen to bear a son and he should be called Jesus.  Of course Mary had a problem with that as she "Knew not a man".  Gabriel informed her that this would be no problem for the son will be begotten by God. So she became pregnant as Gabriel had said.
    So where did Mary go next? She went into the hill country to the city of Judah and went to see Zacharias and Elisabeth.  She entered the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth.
    (Luke 1:41-42) "And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy spirit; and she lifted up voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit if thy womb". Luke established a link between Jesus and John the Baptist even before they were born.
    Now here is where Luke differed significantly from Matthew. A decree came from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. Enrolled for what isn't clear but, the popular notions is that Caesar wanted a census. According to Luke, that compelled Joseph to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth because he was of the house and family of David. Mary was really pregnant at this time but, Joseph was still betrothed to her. So off to Bethlehem they went. No marriage as of yet. Jesus was due to be born out of wedlock according to Luke. Not sure why he deviated from Matthew so much, but it could be that he wanted to insure the idea that Mary was a virgin, even up to the birth of Jesus. In fact, it isn't clear that Joseph ever married Mary. It could be that the idea of Mary remaining a virgin for her entire life appealed to Luke.
    Next follows the most popular version of the tale, where Mary gave birth to Jesus, wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was not room for them in the inn.
    At this time there were shepherds in the field and angel came to them "the glory of the Lord shone round about them". They were scared out out of their minds. I don't blame them. So, the angel told them not to be afraid, that he brings them great tidings of joy. That this day in the city of David a Saviour (their spelling) is born, who is Christ the lord. He told them where they could find the baby (Luke 2;13-14) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to god in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased".
     Luke's version of the birth of Jesus is usually the one portrayed in the plays and pageants put on by religious groups. But, that doesn't make it the more accurate one. It is just a better story. It certainly fits the image of a divine birth better than Matthew.
    Sometimes there is an attempt to merge the two stories together, but that is really a farce, as they don't mesh well without sacrificing a lot of authenticity. The other clinker in the pot is, there is no record of the Romans demanding a census at this time. And, that is not the way they conducted a census anyway. The ones they did take were done in place. The Romans were very good record keepers. Luke's tale is highly suspect as it is told.
    When Jesus was twelve years old his parents took him, as they did every year, to Jerusalem at the feast for the passover. When they were returning they noticed that Jesus was staying behind and they didn't know where he was. When they found him after three days of searching, he was sitting in the midst of teachers,both hearing them and asking them questions. Can you imagine missing your twelve year old son for three days?
    (Luke 2:47-49) "and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him, they were astonished: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?"
    The next time Jesus appears on the scene is at his baptism by John. When he was baptized the heaven was opened. 
    (Luke 3:22) "and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased".
    Then Jesus begin to teach. Luke says he was about thirty years old at the time. Then he goes through of litany of ancestry to establish Joseph's linage all the way back to Adam.
    Now Luke relates the tale of trial where Jesus was led into the wilderness where he didn't eat for forty days and was tempted by the devil with all kinds of worldly stuff if he would just switch sides. Of course he didn't fall for it.
    Jesus then traveled around doing Jesus things, but mainly preaching.
    He starting collecting his twelve disciples. The first was Simon and then James and John.
    (Luke 6:12-16) "And it came  to pass in these days, that he went out into the mountain to pray; and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples; and chose from them twelve, whom also he named his apostles: Simon, whom he also named Peter and Andrew his brother and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, And Matthew and Thomas and James the som Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor". One should question; what happened to Thaddaeus and where did the other Judas, son of James come from. Luke has a little different set of disciples.
    It is noteworthy that a special note is made in Luke 8:22 that women are following Jesus around and that three are mentioned specifically. Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuzas, Herod's steward and Susanna.
    Jesus continued roaming the land healing the sick, casting out demons and performing other miracles. 
    (Luke 10:1) "Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come."  Here us where Luke introduced the additional apostles not mentioned in Matthew or Mark. He bestowed upon the them the power to heal the sick, cast out demons, tread upon serpents and scorpions.
    Jesus was always in trouble for performing healing on the sabbath. (Luke 13:10-14) "And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath day. And behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up. And when Jesus saw her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands upon her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, answered and said to the multitude, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore, come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath." Sounds like a parable in Mark. 
    In chapter 15 Luke relates the well known parable about the lost sheep and the one concerning the woman who has 10 pieces of silver and having lost one, is rejoiced when she finds it. He couples this parable with the story of the prodigal son.
    Jesus talked to a man that was very rich (Luke 18:24-25) "And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needles eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  Sound familiar?
    Jesus came close to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount of Olivet, he sent two of disciples to get him a colt. He said that they will find the colt and for the disciples to just take it. If anyone asks, just say that the Lord needed it. The owners came out and challenged the disciples about stealing his colt. The disciples then informed the owner that the Lord needed it. So, they took it, brought it back to the mount and it says that they threw their garments on it and Jesus set thereon. (Luke 19:29-35).
    The famous scene where Jesus cast out the sellers and money lenders upon his entrance to Jerusalem during passover, isn't the only time Jesus got irate about desecrating the temple. (Luke 19:45-46) "And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.
    Another of the famous sayings by Jesus appears in Luke. He was asked, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? His answer was: (Luke 20:24-25) "Show me a denarius, Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said Caesar's. And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
    The Last Supper varies little among the Gospels. However, how Jesus decided on the place for the feast of Passover is interesting. He told Peter and John to go into the city and they will meet a man bearing a pitcher of water. They are to follow him to his house. (Luke 22:11) "And ye shall say unto the master of the house, The Teacher saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?" The owner showed them a large upper room and they made it ready. 
   Leading up to the execution of Jesus is pretty constant among the tellers. The betrayed of Jesus with a kiss by Judas, the denial by Peter and so forth.
    First they took Jesus to the high priests house, (Luke 22:63) "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him.) Then they took him to their council, consisting of chief priests, scribes and elders of the people. They then asked if he was the son of God and he said that he was. That pretty much condemned him. (Luke 22:71) "And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth." 
    Then they brought him before Pilate. They then appealed to Pilate saying that this man is perverting our nation, forbidding tribute to Caesar and saying the he himself is Christ the king. After questioning him, Pilate said he found no fault in this man.
    They then pleaded urgently saying that he was stirring up the people and teaching throughout Judaea and Galilee. Pilate then said that this was in Herod's jurisdiction and sent him there.  Jesus didn't fair much better with Herod and Herod sent him back to Pilate. Jesus was being to feel like a  ping-pong ball about this time. 
    Pilate called together the council again and said again that he found no fault in this man and therefore, I will chastise him and release him. 
    Not familiar with law at that time I'm not sure what happened next, but (Luke 23:17) "Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner."  (The book of John clears that up a little). They were holding a murderer named Barabbas in prison. The crowd shouted that they release him instead of Jesus. Pilate again wanted to release Jesus, but the crowd wanted him crucified. Pilate then said for the third time he say no cause of death in this man and therefore he will chastise him and release him. 
   But the crowd wasn't happy and shouted for him to be crucified, so Pilate gave in and passed the sentence they wanted. So he released Barabbas and sentenced Jesus to be crucified. 
    So they led him away and laid a cross upon Simon of Cyrene to bear it for him. A great multitude of people and of women followed him and "bewailed and lamented " him. 
   Jesus turned to them and told not to weep for him but rather for themselves and their children. And then they came to the place called The skull, where they crucified him.
    On the cross before he died, there were two malefactors that were being executed. One of them spoke, saying (Luke 23:42) "And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. (Luke 23:43) "And he said unto him,verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise". This is a twist to the story not told by Matthew or Mark. It does however, emphasize the power of atonement, which is probably the reason Luke included it. 
    Luke(23:46) 'And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost." 
     A man named Joseph went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus, took it down and wrapped in linen, laid him in a tomb hewn in stone. Little different from the tale told by Matthew.
    The women who had come with him from Galilee, followed after and say where they entombed the body. As was the custom, the prepared spices and ointments to use on Jesus's body.
    They came to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. They then entered and noticed that the body was missing. (Luke 24:4) "And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel: (Luke 24:5-6) and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, then said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee". Luke added an angel to the story. 
    Luke now identified the women as Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, mother of Jesus and other women. They ran from the tomb and told the eleven, and to all the rest. They disbelieved them. Note, suddenly Luke has Mary the mother of Jesus in the story, something that Matthew and Mark didn't do. I guess it was to enhance the divinity of Mary. Or, he thought it must have been that way.
    But, Peter ran to the tomb and saw for himself that the body was missing. This left Peter perplexed. 
    There were two of the disciples walking and Jesus appeared before them. They didn't recognize him. One of them named Cleopas (one of the seventy?) asked Jesus if he was traveling to Jerusalem alone and did he not know of the things that had been going on these days?
    After some discussion they came to where they were going, but Jesus seemed to be going further.  They invited him to stay with them for the evening, so he did. He sat down to eat with them, took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it gave it to them. Suddenly they knew who he was. He promptly vanished out of their sight.
    They returned to Jerusalem and told the eleven what had happened. While they were relating their tale, Jesus appeared among them and said "Peace be unto you".
    At that they were scared and supposed that they were looking at a spirit. He asked them, why are you troubled?  Don't you see me?
    Then he asked if they had anything to eat. They gave him a piece of broiled fish and he ate it with them.
    Then he reminded them of the things he had said and the prophecies. He opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures.
    He then blessed them, departed and was carried to heaven.
    They worshiped him, and returning to Jerusalem went continually in the temple, blessing God.
    So ends the tale of Luke.
     
     

    

    

   

      
   
     
        
    
    

      
   
    

  

My brief history of Jesus as Told in the Gospels Part 2 Mark

    Now we come to the Gospel according to Mark, usually attributed to Mark the Evangelist, the second book of the Gospels.  
     Probably the first question one should ask is, who exactly was Mark? He certainly was not one of the 12 disciples who followed Jesus during his ministry. 
    He was born in the first century, probably not long after the birth of Jesus and there are a number of conjectures concerning his origins and connection with the early Christian Church.
    With the help of Wikipedia:
    According to William Lane (1974), an "unbroken tradition" identifies Mark the Evangelist with John Mark, and John Mark as the cousin of Barnabas. His connection to the story in this version, is based on being the cousin of Barnabas.
     Oh you say--Who is Barnabas and what is he doing in this story?
    Barnabas, born Joseph, was an early Christian, one of the prominent Christian disciples in Jerusalem. According to Acts 4:36, Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. Named an apostle in Acts 14:14, he and Paul the Apostle undertook missionary journeys together and defended Gentile converts against the Judaizers. They traveled together making more converts (c. AD45–47), and participated in the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50) Barnabas and Paul successfully evangelized among the "God-fearing" Gentiles who attended synagogues in various Hellenized cities of Anatolia.
    On the other hand, Hippolytus of Rome in On the Seventy Apostles distinguishes Mark the Evangelist, John Mark, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas .  According to Hippolytus, they all belonged to the "Seventy Disciples" who were sent out by Jesus to disseminate the gospel  in Judea.  (Seventy Disciples, where did that come from?) 
    In another version of the story of who Mark is, and his connection to the story; Herod Agrippa I, killed James, son of Zebedee and arrested Peter, planning to kill him after Passover. Peter was saved by the angels and escaped out of the realm of Herod.  Peter went to Antioch, then through Asia Minor (visiting the churches at various locations) and arrived in Rome in the second year of Emperor Claudius (AD 42). Somewhere on the way, Peter encountered Mark and took him as travel companion and interpreter. This established that Mark was educated and likely spoke Greek. Mark the Evangelist could have taken notes on the sermons of Peter, this being the basis for composing the Gospel according to Mark, (So in a way, under this interpretation of Mark's ties to Christianity, the Gospel of Mark is really the sermons of Peter). Then he left for Alexandria (c AD 49) in the third year of Claudius.
    Upon arriving at Alexandria, he founded the Church of Alexandria. 
    So Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, who was a disciple to Paul, or he was a disciple to Peter. Perhaps both. Take your choice.
    Most modern scholars argue the Gospel of Mark was actually written by an anonymous author, not by Saint Mark. Certainly not by anyone who actually witnessed the actual events that were wrote about in the Book of Mark.
    It is easy to conclude that the author of the Gospel of Mark is guilty of bit of plagiarism, that he read Matthew first and just copied a large part of it, in fact almost all of it. However, some scholars believe the Mark was actually the first Gospel written and it was Matthew and Luke that followed. 
    Mark begins his tale after Jesus has left his home to begin his ministry with his visit to John the Baptist to be baptized. Mark did not tackle the story of the birth of Jesus. Jesus then started to gather his first disciples. 
    The story of Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother joining Jesus was exactly as in Matthew.
    One episode high lighted the friction that was growing between Jesus and the Pharisees. (Mark 2:15-17) "And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many, and they followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners". 
    Another significant entry in the book was the issue of performing healing on the Sabbath. (Mark 3:1-4) "And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered. 
    And they watched, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or do harm? to save a life or to kill? But they held their peace." This was an on going problem for Jesus, performing healing on the sabbath. Jesus then restored the mans hand. (Mark 3:6) "And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him." 
    So right away, the book showed that Jesus was at odds with the Pharisees. But, who were these Pharisees that hate Jesus so much that they are looking for ways to destroy him? The Gospels often portray the Pharisees as an enemy of John the Baptist and Jesus.  But, there are also several references in the New Testament to the Apostle Paul being a Pharisee. The relationship between Early Christianity and Pharisees was not always hostile however: e.g. Gamaliel is often cited as a Pharisaic leader who was sympathetic to Christians. Mainly the Pharisees were a political, which in those days meant a religious party, generally having the backing and good will of the common people. Just how the Pharisees fit into the society of the Jews is a history lesson within itself. The Pharisees might not have liked Jesus's teachings but, they were not the only voice in Israel at the time. But, Jesus's great appeal was to the people that supported the Pharisees. It is easy to see why the leadership of the Pharisees would not care for Jesus and his attractiveness to the very people that were their base. The Jews were not a single unified voice in how to interpret the Torah. The Sadducees, who were mainly the upper class and wealthy Jews, were another major political (religious) party. 
    According to Mark, Jesus chose a little different way to anoint his twelve chosen ones.
    (Mark 3:13-19) "And he goeth into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would; and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out demons: and Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him". 
     At one time Jesus's mother and his brethren came to him and wanted to talk. (Mark 3:31) "And there came his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren? And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."  It seems that Jesus was not that good a son in the common meaning of the word. It could be that he really was on the outs with his family, especially his parents, in spite of the fact that he taught that to disrespect one mother and father was a sin.  His mother came to see him and he was too busy to bother.  Not sure what was going on here, but it looks odd. He taught that doing the will of God trumped all and that you should leave your family to do so. It also reinforces the notion that Jesus had siblings.
     Jesus continues his roaming and doing Jesus things. Most all the parables, healing, casting out of demons and sayings found in the book of Matthew are repeated here. One small exception is that Mark has a bread and fishes story with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes with which he fed the multitude. The seven loaf story emerges in chapter 8.In fact he enjoyed this tale so much it was repeated 2 more times each.
    He continued to roam the land drawing huge throngs of people to hear him, making the Pharisees uncomfortable. He was breaking all kinds of Jewish traditions along the way. Healing on the sabbath, eating with "defiled" hands and others.
     At last he came near to Jerusalem. 
     (Mark 11:1-2) "And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go your way into the village that is over against you: and straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat; loose him, and bring him"  Most accounts having Jesus sending the disciple for an ass, but Mark preferred a colt which is the foal of an ass. 
    The disciples got the colt and Jesus rode it into Jerusalem. While in Jerusalem he was challenged many times on his teachings which he answered with parables and other teachings.
    (Mark 11:11)  "And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being eventide, he went  out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he answered and said  unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it."  Later when they returned the fig tree was withered and dead. Jesus didn't put up with anything, not even a stubborn tree.
    Then they returned to Jerusalem and entered the temple, saw what was going on, and all hell broke loose, just as the story told by Matthew.
     (Mark 11:18) "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. 
    After they returned to the mount of Olives, Peter, John, James and Andrew asked him about what signs would there be before the end of time. This is where Jesus went through a litany of things that will happen. Wars and rumors of wars, nations will rise against nations, earthquakes, famine and the gospel must first be preached unto all nations. Brother shall slay brother and father shall slay his child; and the child shall rise up and slay it's parents. False Christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders. The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light and the stars shall fall from the heavens. Then you will see the Son of man coming in great power and glory. In other words, all kinds of bad things are in our future. How Mark found out about this meeting and what was said, is anybodies guess. Perhaps from Peter. Matthew certainly never revealed it in his telling.
    All this is mothers milk to the typical fire and brimstone preacher.
    Marks telling of the last supper is very close to the story told in Matthew. 
    The story of Jesus's betrayal by Judas and the subsequent events are well documented in Matthew, with very few differences. For one, the famous scene of Pilate washing hands is missing from Mark's story. Another, the amount of money isn't mentioned. The scene on the cross follows closely to Matthew. (Mark 15:25-28) "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. And with him they crucify two robbers,one on this right hand, and one on his left. And the scripture was fulled, which saith, And he was reckoned with transgressors". It should be noted that there is no atonement for one of the  robbers during the crucifixion. That is reserved for Luke to write about, or invent.
    Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilate if he could have the body for burial.  (Mark 15:44-45) "And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph." Jesus died in only three days which was unusual. Crucifixion was designed to be a long and painful death. 
    Here the story various a little from that related in the Book of Matthew. 
    The two Mary's, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, brought spices that they might anoint him. They wondered how they were going to roll back the stone so they could do what they came for.
    When they arrived the stone was already rolled away. (Mark 16:5) "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed"  Notice that Mark doesn't name the young man as an angel, although he seems to infer it. 
    The young man then pointed out that Jesus was no longer where they had laid him. He said to the Mary's to tell his disciples and Peter that he would go before them to Galilee and meet with them. 
    (Mark 16:8) "And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid".
     Now the story gets even more interesting. The first person he appeared to was, Mary Magdalene, described as a women from whom he had cast out seven demons. She then went to the disciples, as they mourned and wept, and told them that she had been with a risen Jesus. They didn't believe her. Of course not, she was a woman. Why would Jesus come to her first? This does show that there was a special connection between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, which leads to all kinds of speculation.
    Then he appeared in another form to two of them (It doesn't say which two). The two then told the others, but they weren't believed either. Jesus is having a hard time with his disciples.
    Jesus then appeared to the eleven as they sat eating. (Mark 16:14-16) "And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into the world, and preach the gospel to whole creation. He that believeth  and baptized shall be saved; but he the disbelieveth shall be condemned."  So Jesus sent the eleven men, who had real doubts about him, out in the world to carry his word. 
    Then Jesus anointed the eleven with special gifts. (Mark 16:17) "And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover". 
    Now one can see where so called faith healers get their authenticity. This passage has generated all kinds of weirdos, including snake worshipers, speaking in tongues and other practices. Notice, Mark, like Matthew, doesn't give the power of actually forgiving sin to the eleven. Each person is responsible for themselves.  An individual is saved by believing in him and being baptized. No intermediary required. 
     After that, it says, he went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God.
    The final passage in Mark; 16:20 " And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.
     Thus ends the story of Jesus as told by Mark. Luke follows:
       

   

     
   

    
  
    
     
   
     
    
    
    
      
    

My Brief History of Jesus as Told in the Gospels Part 1 Matthew

     I'm sure that almost everybody who had any affiliation with a Christian church has had the stories from the first 4 books of the New Testament, which are called the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, told to them in Sunday School or in some other way.  The story of the birth of Jesus, his deeds and sayings in his preaching to the people of Israel and the crucifixion at the end of his life has been related many ways. Even though they know the stories, or at least something close to the stories told in the first four books of the New Testament, I don't know if the story of Jesus's life as told by the people who wrote those books isn't really all that well known. They know the story of the birth, sort of.  It is told every Christmas, sometimes in large Pageants, but mostly in small plays put on by a church.  A lot of people who go to church every Sunday have never read the bible, or it's been a long time. I thought it would be fun to give a short recap of Jesus's life as told in the Gospels. But, not his teachings, that would be a little much and it's already been done in a book called the Bible.
    It should be pointed out that no one is sure who actually wrote the Gospels. We know who's name is attached to the first four books, but considering that the Gospels were written one or probably two or three generations after the death of Jesus, the actual authors remain a mystery to most scholars, although there are some that are sure the authors of the books are the ones who's names they carry. Even if that is true, how could any of them have known the details related in the Gospels. Even if they were there at the time of the sermons contained in the four books, they didn't have any way to record them, so what they write about is at least twenty or thirty years after the event and all from memory. Of course Mark and Luke were not there, in fact they never even met Jesus. Even further, Luke never even met a person who actually knew Jesus. 
    Anyone who has actually read the Bible is aware of the discrepancies among the authors about certain details of the life of Jesus. I will leave that to the reader to reconcile. 
    It seems, by people who really study these things, that Matthew was the earliest of the Gospels. They base that on factors such as the style of writing, the language used and other factors of which I have no expertize. But, if you read the Gospels, you probably conclude that the scholars are right, Matthew is the first of the Gospels. However, some scholars believe that Mark was the first.
     After you read Matthew, you really don't need to read any of the others.  The message that Jesus brought is completely covered in that book and is only repeated, sometimes verbatim, in the other three books. However, each book has a different slant on some of the events, sometimes a significant difference. If you believe in any of the books as being authentic, then Matthew is the most credible.
    I will not attempt to relate the message that Jesus was preaching, just the basic history of his life as related in the Gospels. For anyone who feels they need to know that information should go to the source and actually read one of the more modern translations. The early translations has been found to have translation errors, and the new ones will be much easier to read. (That will be disputed by the fundamentalists). That is, if you can plow your way through one of the most boring books ever written. 
     However you might not like what you read if you consider yourself a modern Christian. Jesus's admonitions to his followers about all kinds of subjects such as what is expected of you to get to heaven, marriage, divorce, charity, gentiles and the pursuit of worldly goods among other things, show just how UN-Christian the vast majority of us are. We, in fact, are the Pharisees of the story. The modern man or woman, cleric or priest would probably be right in the crowd cheering the executioner on. 
     It is easy to see, however, how the poor and downtrodden of the world would embrace the message in the book. For most of history the poor had no hope of ever escaping their lot in life. But, Jesus came along and promised them, that if they followed him, they would be rewarded in heaven. Not sure why the rich would like the message Jesus was teaching, and they certainly don't, in reality, no matter how much they go to church. One of the most famous quotes from the Bible is "It is be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". But, the "in" crowd certainly used that message to convince the poor and disenfranchised to be happy with their position in life, because they would be rewarded after death. A message embraced by the church with vigor as they crowned Kings and let them exploit the masses.
     First let's look at the story as told in the Book of Matthew. My first intention was to include all 4 books in a single blog, but after getting started I realized that that might be a little much. So, I decided to break into parts. I hope it entertains. perhaps informs and doesn't get too many peoples drawers in a knot. 
    But, who was Matthew:
    Matthew was a publican, or tax collector, before he was called as one of the Lord’s Apostles. Because of that profession, we can guess that he was well educated and knew how to read and write, probably in several languages, including Greek. He also knew arithmetic. He saw and heard many things while with Jesus, and it is likely he wrote down some of the sayings as notes or in a journal. Later, these notes would have helped him or one of his own followers to write the book carrying his name.

     In his book, Matthew often stresses that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Matthew wrote specifically to the Jews, who were familiar with those prophecies.

     Matthew was a man who could have moved comfortably in political circles, and his book mentions things that someone in his position would know.

     The Gospel According to Matthew starts with a lot of begats. The purpose is to establish that Joseph is of the house of David. That is necessary because the prophecy states that the messiah will be born of the house of David. Of course Joseph, not being the actual father, throws some doubt into that line leading from David to Jesus.
    Now, at that time there was a young girl named Mary who was betrothed to Joseph. Remember that betrothal in those days was through arraignment between the parents, and nothing to do with love as we know it today. He may or may not, have known her before the betrothal. Nothing else is really said about Joseph. We don't know where he lives or what he does at this point in the book. It would be assumed that these events would have taken place in Bethlehem, as there is no indication of any movement. (Luke introduced that notion). Joseph and Mary were married and then Mary had to reveal something to Joseph. 
   Matthew now says:
    ( Matthew 1:18) "before they came together (i.e. slept together in our language) she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" Now it says (Matthew 1:19) "And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily" (that likely means hiding her away, but it's a strange word, but does seem to indicate something about privacy).  You can imagine, Joseph must have been livid, he had just married a woman already pregnant. However:
   ( Matthew 1:20) "But when he thought on those things, behold, and Angel of the lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit". You notice that every one in Israel spoke 16th century English at that time. Very advanced of them.
     Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem. Apparently  unnoticed, except for three Wise-men in the east. The Wise-men or Magi, are likely Astrologers, sometimes they are portrayed as Kings.
    The three Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem asking for the new born King of the Jews, for they saw his star in the east and had come to worship him. (It is likely that what they really saw was a reading of the stars, as astrologers do. There is no way that a star could be seen to hang over a particular place on earth. But, the people of time didn't understand that the earth rotates, how enormous the universe is, the true nature of stars and how far away  from the earth they are).
    Herod, the King heard of this and was troubled. He gathered his Priests and Scribes and asked where this new King of the Jews would be born. They answered that it had to be in the City of David, (Bethlehem) because that was the prophecy.  
   Herod than summoned the Wise-men and asked them the time of the birth and when they found the child, to come back and tell him so that he could worship him. 
   The  Wise-men found the young child, he was likely very close to 2 at the time, and fell down and worshiped him. They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    The  Wise-men were warned of Herod's motives and didn't return to tell him of the location. This really pissed Herod off, so he ordered every child of 2 or less in the city of Bethlehem and it's surrounding area killed. 
    Joseph and Mary were warned of the danger by an Angel and fled to Egypt where they stayed until Herod's death. Then they returned to Israel and settled in the city of Nazareth. Thus Jesus became known as a Nazarene. 
     This is last we hear of Joseph and Mary in the book of Matthew except for a brief mention in chapter 13 (Matthew 13:54 and 13:55) "And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?". And (Matthew 13:56) "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?". This could lead one to believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but it is not conclusive. It is likely he did. It also should be pointed out that naming Joseph as a carpenter is disputed by many scholars. The actual translation probably should have been builder. But, because the first English translation was done where a builder would have been a carpenter, Joseph was tagged with that occupation. Considering that a builder in Israel would have actually been a mason, that might be the more likely occupation.
     Nothing else was heard of Jesus in this book until he reached adulthood when he shows up to John the Baptist to be Baptized.
     Jesus then started traveling around Israel preaching, healing the sick, driving out demons, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes (4 to 5 thousand) with 7 loaves of bread and 2 fishes and performing other miracles. Most of the parables that you have heard, came from the book of Matthew. As does the Lords Prayer. For details of his preaching see the source.
    During his travels he started to collect followers including a lot of women, he apparently was a rock star. Most notable were the followers that will become his twelve disciples or Apostles.
   Jesus was walking by the sea of Galilee and he saw two brothers, Simon Peter and his brother Andrew. He told them to come with him and they did. They were the first of the Apostles.  Later he came upon two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother and they followed him also. Later he added Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaian and Judas Iscariot. What is strange to a lot of people, is that Mark and Luke are not part of this group. These are the twelve disciples that follow Jesus, off and on, through his life and are given special powers. So, contrary to the common belief that the books of the Gospels were written by, or at least inspired by, members of the elite twelve close to Jesus, Mark and Luke weren't part of that group. More on those two later. 
    At one point Jesus brought his group together, (Matthew 10:1) "And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness." Then he sent them out to spread the word and to heal the sick, cast out demons with a lot of admonitions.  An interesting byplay of his order to go out and do his good works is, that the disciples aren't around for a lot of what is reported in the story. It is all hearsay.  Who was around? The women, of course.     
     They, let's call them the main stream Jews, led by the priests, elders and Pharisees, were really mad at Jesus. One of their big gripes was that he healed people on the Sabbath. Which apparently was a no-no at the time. It, along with his statement that he was the Son of God was considered blasphemy. He was a rabble rouser, a radical, a revolutionary, a dangerous man.  He was encroaching on their territory and he was threatening the very foundations of their beliefs. He was, in a sense, the Martin Luther of his day. He was challenging their beliefs, and just as the Catholic Church reacted to Martin Luther, so the  high priests and Pharisees reacted to Jesus. In addition he was gathering a following that measured in the thousands. This man could not be allowed to live.  He was under constant threat from the established order most of his time as a Rabbi (teacher).  I think that the general picture of Jesus being the serene man walking around doing good things is not quite accurate. I think he was more like a Pentecostal preacher at his best, spouting fire and brimstone. He showed on a number of occasions that he could get really mad, peeved or petulant and take physical actions.
     At Passover he came to Jerusalem knowing he was entering the mouth of the lion. He told his followers that his time was short and what they were to do. 
    Then he had another of his rather famous episodes. Mathew 21:12-13) "And Jesus entered into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers".
    Jesus could really be a bad ass when he wanted. Of course that didn't sit well with the high priests; he was into their money.  
     He had a supper at the last Passover of his life, usually called the Last Supper, where he gathered his Apostles about him and started the custom of the eating of bread and drinking of wine after blessing them and pronouncing that they were his body and his blood.  
    At this get together he said the one of them will betray him, which they all denied. He also said to Peter that he would denounce him three times before the cock crowed. Both, of course came true. 
    His enemies knew where he was and had arranged for Judas to betray him for 30 pieces of silver. Judas said he would identify Jesus by kissing him. And that is what he did.  (An interesting side light is the alternate version told in the Gospel according to Judas, interesting).
    After Jesus was arrested, his disciples fled and hid, afraid for their lives. Remember Peter and the three denials. The events of the trial and execution of Jesus could not have been known to any of them. No telling how Matthew, or subsequently his own followers, got knowledge of any of these events is a mystery.  I suppose rumors and gossip floating around was the source. Or more likely, it was the women, who apparently stayed by Jesus's side through out.
     The Jews were not allowed to execute anyone, so they took Jesus to the Roman Governor, Pilate. He found no wrong in him and famously washed his hands of the whole thing. However after a lot of wailing and teeth gnashing by the chief priests and the elders that were screaming for his blood, with Pilate saying he didn't want Jesus's blood on his hands, (Matthew 27:25) "And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children".  I have a hard time believing that was actually said in anger. I think it was an invention of a later generation; for one of several possible reasons. It could be to deflect blame from the Romans, who ruled Israel with an iron fist, a view expressed one expert I read, or it could have been just vindictiveness from some Christians who wished to damn the Jews for killing Jesus or it actually could have been just a lament of some in the crowd, recognizing what the execution of a leading figure like Jesus would bring down on their people. It depends on how you read it. In any event, according to the story, Pilate finally gave in and Jesus was sentenced to be crucified. Of course this passage helped set the Jews on a course of persecution from the Christians for centuries for they took it as a cry for the execution of their savior. 
    Judas, in the mean time, recognizing what he had done and feeling guilty tried to return the money. The priests didn't want it because it was blood money, so they buried it in the graveyard of the poor and nameless. Judas subsequently hanged himself. 
    The soldiers took Jesus stripped him, put him in a scarlet robe . Then they put a crown of thorns on his head and mocked him by saying "Hail, King of the Jews".(Matthew 27:29) "They spat on him and took the reed and smote him on the head."
     He was forced to carry his cross on the way to the place of crucifixion. But, in spite of the common idea of that event, he probably had only to carry the cross beam of the cross. That was the common procedure for the condemned man. Carrying the whole massive cross would have been nearly impossible for one man. In general, the post used for crucifixion would be left standing to be used over and over again. Sometimes the Romans just used a tree for the post of the cross and just nailed the cross beam to it.The Romans had this down to a fine art.
    However, he had been beaten and crowned with thorns, so one of the Roman soldiers compelled a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, to carry the cross for him. Jesus was just too weak. 
   When they crucified him they parted his garments among them, casting lots.  They set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
   He was crucified with two robbers, one on the left and one on the right. 
    As he hung on the cross he was constantly jeered and made fun of.  He had saved others, why not save himself if he really is the son of God.
   This is also where the now famous quote of Jesus saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthami? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 
      (Matthew 27:48-50) "And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it in a reed, and gave him a drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yeilded up his spirit."
      (Matthew 27:51)"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two and the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; (Matthew27:52) and the tombs were opened; and the many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised".
   Many women were there, principal among them were two Mary's,  Mary Magdalene and  Mary the mother of James and Joses and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Not sure how that works, but that is what the book says. I supposed the other Mary married twice and had step children. It is clear, from later passages that we are only talking about two Mary's. What may be noteworthy is that Mary, the mother of Jesus wasn't there.
    He died on the third day.  (That is kind of strange, because a crucifixion usually took longer to cause death. It was designed to be a slow tortuous death).
   Now the story gets even more interesting. A rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate for the body. Pilate said Okay.  So he took the body down, wrapped it in clean linen cloth and placed in his own tomb, which was hewn out of a rock. and he rolled a great stone to the door, and departed. 
    The two Mary's were there sitting over against the sepulchre (the tomb). 
    Being a suspicious bunch, the chief priests and the elders came to Pilate the next morning and reminded him that Jesus said he would arise on the third day, so Pilate should put a guard on the tomb until the third day because his disciples may steal him away and proclaim to the people that he has arisen. So Pilate did that very thing. They made sure the sepulchre was secure, sealing the stone and placing a guard. 
    Here is were the great miracle happens. (Mathew 28:1-6) "Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said, Come, see the place where the Lord lay".  See, even the angels speak 16th century English.
    The angel told the women to go quickly and tell his disciples. That he has risen from the dead and he will go before you into Galilee and there you will see him. 
    So the Mary's took off to bring the disciples word. At that point Jesus met them saying (Matthew 28:9) "All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him". He further said to fear not and told the women that he would meet his disciples in Galilee. Mary then carried the message back to the doubting disciples.
   At that point the guards went back into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. After a bit of conferences with elders, they decided to bribe the guards to say that the disciples had come by night and stole him while they were asleep. 
     They, being smart soldiers that they were, and underpaid, took the bribe and repeated the story to the governor and anybody else who would listen. This bit of the story is only related in Matthew.
    The eleven disciples went on to Galilee and to the mountain that Jesus had named
   Even though they saw Jesus and worshiped him, some doubted. 
   Never the less, he sent them off to spread the word to all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 
     What Jesus does after that is not covered by Matthew. 
    And, thus ends the tale of the life of Jesus as written in the book of Matthew. 
    Tune in to Part 2 for Mark. 
        

Are We Building the Wrong Weapons?

         Down through history nations and the military have developed battle strategies and developed weapons based on the last war. The generals and admirals fought in that war, won and are convinced that the strategies and weapons from the last war only needed to be improved to win in the next one. It's usually the losers who learn from their mistakes and devise new tactics around new weapons. 
    In general, it is the tactics that have not caught up to the weapons that are brought to the battlefield. During the American Civil War both sides, under West Point trained officers, adopted the Napoleonic method of fighting.  That was what was taught at the academy. That method assumed that the enemy was close when you let go the first round of shot and would not have time to load more than one more round if you quickly rushed them with bayonets. It was based on the round ball being shot through a smooth bore musket. The smooth bore musket was not very accurate, so the idea was to point the gun in the general direction of the enemy and let go. That is why you see masses of soldiers lined up in tight formations and fairly close together when they dressed the battle line. The idea is, if you put enough lead out in front, you are likely to hit somebody. The smooth bore musket didn't even have sights. The command was Ready---Fire. Aim was added after the rifled musket came on the scene. 
    Rifles were in use before the Civil War but, because of their slow fire rate and smaller bullet they were generally confined to select units, such as snipers or sharpshooters, not to the infantry. 
    Then along came the rifled musket and the minni-ball. Suddenly the range of the gun was extended up to and over 700 yards with greatly improved accuracy. The minni ball solved the problem of slow and difficult loading of the rifled musket, so it came in to general use by both armies. The massed formations of troops were now just sitting ducks to be mowed down at a long distance. But, the generals had a hard time figuring out another way to do battle. So the slaughter just escalated. Picket's charge is good example of how not to charge a fortified defense across an open field. 
       The French built the Maginot line, a series of fortifications along the German-French border, based on their experience with trench warfare in WWI. History showed how effective that was. The French built the wrong weapon. They ignored the writings by such strategists as Rommel and De gaulle, who were talking about a different kind of war, fought with fast moving armor, with tanks as a spearhead.The French planning had the tank in support of infantry.  That resulted in a slow moving heavily armed vehicle. After all the tank only had to move as fast as the infantry.
     The machine gun in WWI changed the battlefield forever, but the French and British generals were too set in their ways to change their tactics. They just kept sending thousands of men out of the trenches into a hail of machine gun fire, where they died by the thousands.
    The Navy, embedded with a large number of battleship admirals, built some of the greatest battleships ever designed going into WWII. The Iowa class battleship (ordered in 1939 as the first of a class of 4) had no real rivals, except perhaps the two big Japanese battleships. So, the Americans and Japanese had spent huge sums of money, material and manpower building the dreadnoughts of the seas----none of which ever fired a single shot at another ship during the entire war. Their primary job was the provide an escort for the carriers, a job that could probably be accomplished just as well, if not better, by cruisers. They were the only Battleships in the American Navy that had sufficient speed to keep up with the fast fleet carriers. All the battleships in the Pacific did get used in shore bombardment, but that seems to be something that was asked of them because they needed something for the big, expensive, ships to do. As it turned out, the shore bombardment was largely ineffective against the Japanese dug in positions on Peleliu, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The primary engagements for any battleship during the war was a couple of obsolete Japanese ships during the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle at Leyte Gulf. In fact, the battleship had little to do with the outcome of the war in the Pacific. I don't know of any battleship in the American or Japanese Navy that was sunk by surface action.
     Today we are spending billions of dollars on weapons based on the experiences in WWII. We are trying to build better planes, missiles and bombs with greater accuracy and building stealth into everything.  We now have the B2 bomber and the now cancelled F117 stealth fighter. Not satisfied with that, billions of dollars have been invested in the very expensive F22 and F35 stealth fighter/attack aircraft.  
    The B2 cost 929 million dollars per aircraft resulting in only 21 aircraft being delivered due to high cost. ( The total program cost for the plane ended up at 2.1 billion dollars per airplane). The B2, with the end of the cold war, has lost it's reason for existing; if it ever had one to begin with.  It was used several times in the Mideast wars, but that was just for it to have something to do. Everything the B2 accomplished could have done with guided missiles from a Navy cruiser or missile destroyer. In fact the B2 has little reason to be in the American arsenal except for flyovers at parades and football games. Everything it can do can be done better by guided missiles.
     The F22 fighter/attack plane is very expensive, which limited the numbers that could be acquired. In total 187 planes were delivered at a cost 412 million dollars per aircraft for the whole program. The deliverable cost was 62 million dollars each. Originally there was talk of a Navy version, but that fell through the cracks as not being practical. 
     The F35 is supposed to be the end all in fighter/attack design. Three versions are being built, the F35A for the Air Force, the F35B for the Marines and the F35C for the Navy. It is supposed to be a multipurpose plane replacing the F15, the F16, the F/A18, the F/A18A and the Marines Harrier. It is expected to do all those jobs. But, as experience has shown, if you design a plane to do multiple jobs, it won't do any one job really well. The plane is built on stealth and the ability to cruise for a short time above mach one without using after burners. The Air Force awarded the contract to Lockheed, which has shown to be a little lax when it comes to managing a large undertaking like the F35 program. They are the Air Force's pet these days because their success with the planes turned out by the skunk-works, including the F117. In 2014 the program was 163 billion dollars over budget and seven years behind in development. It was touted to be more efficient per flight hour than the F16, but ended up at 20% more expensive. This is Lockheed's first venture as the lead contractor for the development of a major airframe in the modern jet age. F16, F15, F/A18 and F/A 18A were all developed by General Dynamics, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. Lockheed's entry into the true fighter game was the acquisition of General Dynamics. The F117 is really just a platform for developing stealth technology and is far from a true fighter. The F 22, also built by Lockheed, was just too expensive to field in any large numbers.
         The navy is building ships with radar suppression capability. That works great against present threats from RADAR and heat seeking missiles in today's world.  Of course that isn't the only defense the ships have against attacks by missiles and aircraft. Attacking a modern Navy ship these days would not be good for your health if you use conventional weapons.  
     But, another war between the major powers will likely not be fought like an upgrade to WWII. Maybe we are already building obsolete weapons for that kind of war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear on a global scale.
     The other guys have spies in the sky just as we do. They know where every surface ship is located. All the stealth technology in the world doesn't hide from visual observation. It is likely that every major surface ship, air base, fixed military station or non-hardened missile site would come under attack within a few hours after the outbreak of a major conflict. The only ships that have a chance of going without being attacked are the submarines. Few of our military installations, outside of the Navy's war ships have the capability to defend against a concentrated attack of non-nuclear guided missiles. The hardened military installations and surface ships could survive a non-nuclear attack, although with heavy damage possible.
     Let's start with stealth. Huge sums of money has been spent to develop stealth capability. Along with RADAR absorbing material for construction, the planes have been designed to deflect the radio wave, such that the return image is very small, to the point of almost being nonexistent. We have one problem. We didn't think of it first, a Russian scientist did.  The required shape of the airframe made the aircraft unstable and impossible to fly until a new generation of controls was developed called fly by wire. But, our lead in stealth technology is only temporary. Other nations, notably Russia and China, are well aware of the theory behind stealth and will not be long developing similar capability---if they haven't already. 
     And, there has never been a weapon system of any kind that hasn't been countered by some development to defeat it. Stealth is no exception. A F117 was shot down by a SAM already.  How long will it be before stealth is nullified by some advance in technology. When that happens we will have multimillion dollar planes that really aren't any better at their jobs than the F16, F15, or the carrier based F/A18A Super Hornet. Perhaps, not as good. And, because they are so expensive, we may be loath to commit them to danger.
      The Navy's F/A18 Hornet and F/A 18A Super Hornet and the Air Forces' F16 and F15 can do everything that is required on the battlefield at this time, or in the foreseeable future. But, lack of funding is seriously compromising the availability of the planes. The last I heard, only half of the F/A 18's, F16's and F15's are airworthy due to budget cuts. We spend money on planes we really have no foreseeable need for and sacrifice the maintenance on planes where we do have an immediate need.
   What we should be spending that money on for future planning is unmanned aircraft and space warfare. That is the future. It certainly isn't popular with the Air Force. They have all those pilots who need new toys to play with, but the presence of humans limits the maneuverability of a plane while wasting significant resources to keeping the pilot alive and to supply them with information for maximum effectiveness. What the fighter of the future might require is not a qualified pilot, but a teenager with an X-Box controller in his hands.
      Without a human to worry about, planes could be designed with much greater maneuverability and cost a lot less. With the advances in artificial intelligence and modern sensing capability, the situation awareness and reaction time of an unmanned plane engaged in combat would be greatly increased over what a human can do. A computer controlled plane can react in microseconds to any threat, can pull huge G forces in maneuvering and target an enemy with far greater accuracy than any human. The current planes are designed to take up to about 9 G's, because the human sitting in the cockpit can't take anymore anyway. Think about something else. The pilot is being supplied so much information it is impossible to keep track of all of it. So a great deal of time, effort and money has been spent to design displays and other means to aid in simplifying the display for the pilot, so that they have situation awareness without being overwhelmed. Guess how that is done? AI does it. All that effort is just to create an environment for the pilot to act quickly. The pilot sees what the AI wants him to see. In one sense, even with a human aboard, the plane is being flown and fought by the AI already aboard. It wouldn't take much more just to leave the pilot on the ground. 
     If a non nuclear conflict breaks out between two nations with advanced technology, almost the first thing that will have to go is the spy satellites that look down and map everything on earth.   You can not allow an enemy to have that kind of visibility into the movement of troops, the deployment of ships and other useful knowledge gained from spy satellites.      
     We will have a scenario that is much like what happened in WWI. The first fighters were developed to shoot down the flimsy observation planes used by both sides. Fighters were then developed to protect the observation planes. It became evident to each side that they had to gain air superiority, spurring the rapid development of better and better aircraft.  
     The modern fighter is just an extension of that scenario. Such a scenario is likely to be repeated if another major conflict breaks out, except it will be moved up a level into lower orbits in space where the observation satellites are stationed. Satellite destroyers, for want of a better name, likely unmanned, will have to be developed to shoot down observation satellites. The enemy will counter with destroyers to attack your Satellite destroyers and the war in space will then escalate. It is easy to see where this could be headed. Space based weapons emulating the WWII bomber will be next. How ready are we to repel an attack from space?
    The Chinese have already demonstrated the ability to destroy a satellite. If we lose eyes over a potential battlefield and the enemy has such eyes, the outcome would become very chancy indeed.     
     If, however, the conflict goes nuclear, then you might as well bend over and kiss your butt goodbye. There will be another mass extinction event.
     

Can This Democratic Republic Long Endure?

        If history has taught us one thing, it is that no system of government lasts forever. In fact most forms of government only last for a relatively short time before it is changed to something different, or even falls. 
     Think about it. The United States has a system of government that is arguably the oldest of all the developed countries. Since the adoption of our constitution, the Russians have changed hands many times, from a absolute monarchy Czarist Russia) to a republic (short lived) to a dictatorship (the USSR) under communism. Following the collapse of USSR a new semi-dictatorship was established in Russia. The Germans went from a Monarchy to republic after WWI and then a dictatorship under the Nazis to a Democratic Republic after WWII. The French threw out the monarchy and had a brief fling with a Republican government but then entered another monarchy under Napoleon Bonaparte and then back to a Republican government after his downfall.  There was another change in government when the Germans defeated  the French in WWII. The English moved from a powerful monarch with a vast empire to a purer form of a Republic, with the Monarch having only a ceremonial position and no say in government at all. A far cry from the days of Mad King George. China went from a monarchy to a dictatorial state under the communist after several iterations. And the story goes on.
    The reason for the changes vary from country to country. Some changes were the result of invasion by foreign powers and some, in fact most, were really the result forces acting within the structure that brought it down.Very often the fall of a government to a foreign power is proceeded by a long history of corruption and decadence within, making the fall almost certain.   Rome is good example. 
    The United States form of government, from it's founding, has been under threat a couple of times. 
     In 1812 the British were on the edge of reconquering American and taking it back into the fold.  Only a heroic stand at Fort McKinley in Baltimore stopped that from happening. If we had lost there we might very well be flying the British flag now.  
     The nation was literally torn apart in 1860 when 13 southern states decided to destroy this nation by rebelling.  They feared that the election of a Republican to the White House would not only stop the spread of slavery, which they desired to do, but might actually put an end to slavery all together. A bloody war was fought to hold the nation together. Thousands of lives were lost in effort to save this nation.
    The nation changed as a result of the Civil War. Going into the war we were the united States of America. The population, including those at, and graduates of, West Point, owed more loyalty to their state than to the nation.  Robert E Lee, who did not own any slaves, felt that he could not fight against his state and resigned his commission and joined the rebels. Almost all the southern born officers in the U S army resigned and joined the Confederacy.
     After the War we became the United States of America. One nation, not a collection of semi-independent states. That was significant change in the form of government. But, through it all we had the corner stone of our contract with the government, the Constitution.  
      The Civil War was probably the greatest threat to our form of  government for a long time. Although one could argue that the Japanese threatened us when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, they had no real plans to conquer the United States, just to get us out of the Pacific and let them establish their "Asian Sphere of Influence". They thought that wiping out the the Pacific Fleet would force the Americans to ask for peace and the Japanese could then go on their merry way to control all of Asia. Their evaluation of the American psychology at the time was simply that we did not have the stomach to fight. 
     Hitler had great plans, but no real way to carry them out. He made the mistake of taking on the Russians with the British still at his back. He opened up a two front war, which anybody who knows anything about this stuff can tell you that is a very bad idea.  Of course, he then compounded his problems by declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world, The United States.  Just how dumb can one man get?  American industrial power then fueled the war machine that brought victory in the Second World War.  
    As I noted earlier, a form of government can be changed abruptly by acts of war, rebellion or invasion of a foreign power, but it can also be changed slowly and almost unrecognizably by forces from within.   
     The United States has been changing since it's inception. Technology has driven vast changes in how the nation operates and sees itself.  The railroad, the car, the plane, mass production have had a profound influence on the country. There were many social changes in the United States over the years. The Constitution provided a method for change to reflect changing times by the amendment process. Notable among these were the 13th and 14th amendments which outlawed slavery and made all people born in the United States, regardless of color, as full citizens.  Also, the 19th amendment assured women's suffrage throughout the United States. Up until then it was up to each state to decide the matter.    
    Since then the courts at all levels have been staffed more and more with judges which are prone to stepping outside the limits placed on government by the Constitution and are literarily making new law. The liberals had found a way to get their programs implemented without having to go through the congress. 
    A good example of the differences between current and past courts is the comparison between women's suffrage and abortion. Neither of these issues are addressed in the Constitution. The older courts would not rule on suffrage. The Constitution didn't address it so the courts felt is an issue left to the states to decide. It was the opinion that the federal government had no right to interfere. It took an amendment to the Constitution to force suffrage on all the states. It should be mentioned that a lot of states already had suffrage. In the case of abortion, the courts (Roe vs Wade) held that it was unconstitutional to deny an abortion to any woman who wants one. Before that each state was free to decide this issue by the citizens of that state. There is no part of the Constitution, nor any law passed by the Congress, that addresses abortion on demand. Then the logic changed. The courts acted outside of the federal Constitution and in reality made a new law allowing abortion through the United States. A new right was discovered. 
     The downside for the abortion advocates is that Roe vs Wade can be overturned by a subsequent court. Of course suffrage can't because it written into the Constitution.  
     The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues. 
    It seems that we are undergoing a restructuring of our form of government. This morphing of the government, from a nation based on the idea of freedom of the individual, individual initiative, minimum government and adherent to the Constitution, into that of the government providing a social network attempting to provide for the well being and comfort of all it's citizens and a new interpretation of the Constitution. That it is a fluid document and needs to be interpreted to fit societies desires at the time.      
      (Largely from Wikipedia) The changes in attitude about the role of government started during the Great Depression.  As a solution to the Great Depression Roosevelt initiated a program called the New Deal.  The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted in the United States 1933-36. Some of these federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Grand Cooley Dam was built as part of the jobs program under the Roosevelt regime. Some of these programs had trouble in courts initially. They were declared unconstitutional. But, after an attempt to expand the court by Roosevelt and some public pressure, the court approved most of them. These programs included support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. It included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933–1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937–1964. The Roosevelt New Deal and has been carried on and expanded since.  
    This was a complete departure from previous government actions in the face of several recessions and an earlier great depression. Whether Roosevelt's programs helped or actually slowed down the recovery is open to debate. Many economists believe that he actually did more harm than good. In any event the general feeling was that Roosevelt was the savior of the country and he set up the Democrats to be viewed as the party of the working man. As a result of the Roosevelt programs, and their perceived success, a new role for government was now stamped into the American mind. That was never more evident than during the last recession where Obama took a page out of Roosevelt's play book and with a Democratic Congress, rammed through all kinds of bailouts for banks, investment houses and big corporations with the to big "To Big To Fail Label".  A large infrastructure program was undertaken to provide jobs.
     The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues. 
   A current bone of contention is the issue of gun control. The anti-gun faction is doing everything it can to infringe upon the citizens right to bear arms. This is a clear violation of 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So a great contest is being waged by the supporters of the right to own a gun and those that want to eliminate guns altogether from society. The problem the anti-gun lobby has is the 2nd Amendment. The courts have gone a long way in supporting restrictions on the sell and  possession of guns.  However, at this point they have stood firmly against any attempt to outlaw guns completely. You wonder how long that will last until a new interpretation of the Amendment is announced by a liberal court. After all, the Amendment includes the phrase  "A well regulated Militia" as being the justification for its existence.
     The question is----are the changes we are seeing and experiencing a precursor to a significant change in the nature of the government?  Will the changes continue under social pressure from the liberals to the extent we end up completely ignoring the Constitution were we don't like it and embracing a Socialist form of government?  I think the answer is---it is a definite possibility.
    If you think about it, our government today would not be recognizable by the people who wrote the Constitution.  
      When one looks at the college campuses and what's going on there, it is easy to see where the nation seems to be heading. After all, these young people who are convinced that Socialism, as taught by their professors, is the right system to bring Truth, Justice and Prosperity to the people. They see problems of poverty, poor medical services and other ills in society and want to fix them. Never mind that every place it's been tried it has been a dreadful failure. They will not listen too, nor allow anyone else to listen too, any contradictory opinion to their own. These are the people who will be the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the reporters in a few years. Any student on campus who displays a Trump sign is likely to meet with bodily harm. They may not be the majority on campus, but they are the loudest and are backed overtly by their professors and the school administration. 
    Even grade schools are in the act. Eleven year old students are marched out of class, led by their teachers, and display signs prepared for them to protest some act of the President or the Congress on some subject; especially immigration. The liberal press eats that kind of thing up. They never bother to ask the students what they are protesting about. The answer wouldn't support the message the media is trying to make.  
     In a recent poll the question was asked if they were proud to be an American. Only 47% said that they were. If you compare that to a similar poll taken in 2003, 70% said they were proud to be an American. If you asked any of the Great Generation that same question, I would be surprised if that number didn't rise to almost 100%.
    To add to the problem, not only do the liberals pretty much control the main stream media, but more importantly for the younger voter, they control the social media. You name it, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft; all owned and and run by liberals. You can't get a job with one of them if you are a conservative. In fact it was reported that Google marched one of their employees out the door for mouthing a conservative thought during the last election.
    Illegal immigration has changed the face of America, especially in the states bordering the Mexican border. California, because of it's liberal policies, has attracted such a huge number of Latinos that they make up a majority of the population in many large cities, and about 47% of the total state.  The once dominate Euro-centric white population is now the minority. This is having a profound impact on the Congress in addition to the local elections. Look at how many California Congressmen and women have Spanish surnames. Most of them have a liberal view of the role of government. The face of America has changed and will continue to change. And, the change seems to be toward a socialist approach of government, where all essential services such as medical and higher education is free, welfare is abundant and only the "Rich" have to pay. 
    The recent Trump revolution has halted some of that momentum, but I fear it's only a temporary pause. But, I guess we'll see. 
     When we wake up one day and find ourselves being taxed at about 80% of our income to pay for all the social programs so dear to the liberals heart and a stripping of our military to pay for it, we might be sorry we don't have any way to stop China and/or Russia from stepping all over us and our interests anywhere in the world.