Analysing the Execution of Jesus

Alternative Narratives of Christ: Crucifixion

Did Jesus Face The Jewish System of Justice?

Disclaimer: I do casual blogs normally but something triggered my inner petty researcher with this one - it's referenced, sourced and a tad more argumentative than normal.

10 min read

Jesus of Nazareth is said to be the son of God who chose to take up his divine mission to save mankind by dying on the cross for all sins. For me this sounds theological, it's a glorification. The religiously obsessed fanatic and the most intelligent Christian will accept it for their own reasons. Anyway, despite Jesus being a mesmeric persona, he is shrouded with mythology and symbolism, which might serve to represent truths of a history more so than being that history. 

Critical scholars and religious evangelicals continue to argue about what parts of the New Testament are authentic. Doesn't that say something? Verily, verily I say unto thee, the prevailing belief among scholars is that they don't much agree. For instance, conservative scholar Craig L. Blomberg said, 'Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.' According to Bart Ehrman, ancient gospel writers chose anonymity to keep Jesus as the focus of their narratives, and I sort of agree, but would like to add that every community would have established their own verbal recollections about those ancient events. 

The Mystery of Gospel Authorship

The Gospels were all written at different times. John is attributed to an unnamed witness and is dated around 80-100 CE. Mark is considered the oldest, experts roughly put it at being written between 65-75 CE, while Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled around 80-100 CE. E.P. Sanders pointed out that early followers of Jesus owned fragments of scripture that were updated over time. After Jesus was executed, the apostles didn’t produce a clear biography like whoever Prince Harry paid to write 'Spare,' - ancient folks were typically illiterate and not monarchy.

The Evolution of Christian Doctrine

The New Testament has been interpreted time and time again, which has spawned numerous denominations. Calvinists, for example, believe in predestination, while Catholics emphasize faith and baptism. Unitarians, don't all view Jesus as the literal one and only Son of God. You see, humanity has had its fair share of Christology, from the Viking chieftain Jesus in the poem called the Heliand, to the blue eyed right-wing American bible-belt Jesus. Theissen and Merz (1996) suggest aspects of the Crucifixion were written much later, and others suspect the resurrection historically differs to how we might imagine it, here. I'm proposing a few alternative considerations by pressing history. 

Historical Accuracy

Most New Testament text was originally written in Old Greek, a very difficult language to master. Dr. John Dominic Crossan noted inconsistencies with Paul's letters. As well as this, the decision to include text into Christian communities led to variations in early manuscripts. For instance, Papyrus 75 (200 AD) miss passages in the later Codex Sinaiticus (300 AD). This might suggest modern additions are not the same accounts of how things previously went down. 

Contradictions and Theological Issues

Seems I'm not alone, Carrier (2014) in his argument for a mythical Jesus, also cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the Crucifixion narratives, saying the unusual Christian phenomena are absent from contemporary Roman and Jewish accounts of crucifixions, which, he added, raises doubt on the entire events write-up!

The Bible contains notable contradictions. Genesis 32:30 suggests seeing God face-to-face, while John 1:18 claims no one has seen God. These little details build up, simply highlight the conflict between historical fact and ancient writers developing their theology. Johannine literature contains Greek terminology and ideas, see the Jesus the Philosopher blog. Hellenic Jewish spirituality of Galilee and Nazareth was multicultural and a far cry from the elite Jewish Orthodoxy of Roman Jerusalem! 

An Ancient Conspiracy? 

Consider what contemporaries of Ignatius of Antioch did not say - Polycarp and Clement of Rome were chief Apostolic Fathers along with Ignatius. Though their surviving writings are limited, they addressed various heresies yet never fiercely defended Jesus's execution method in their letters or writings from the so-called 'Judaizers' (what they called Ebionites and Gnostics). Ignatius opposed Jewish Christian practices despite their worship of his saviour. Even after the majority of early Christians accepted the Roman execution, some still referred to him being stoned and hanged on the cursed tree:

The Ebionite and Nazarene might believe the Mosaic Law's 'cursed tree' (Deuteronomy 21:23) which strengthened the schism with Pauline theology. It followed their preserved tradition of Jesus' death by Jewish stoning and subsequent display, a narrative marginalised by the Gentile church's promotion of Roman crucifixion (Galatians 3:13). 

Ignatius said, 'It is outrageous to utter the name of Jesus Christ and live in Judaism.' Think: would antisemitic devoted Christian Fathers find issue with Jewish leaders executing Jesus instead of it being Rome? Scholars argue this followed Jewish Christianity vs. Pauline Christianity.

Eventually, in the 'Dialogue with Trypho,' Church Father Justin Martyr (circa 150 CE), had to defend the Crucifixion of Jesus against the Jewish charge made by Trypho that Jesus was 'accursed by God' from Deuteronomy 21:23: 'hanged on a tree'.

​However, Justin did not deny the 'hanged on a tree' premise. 

​In fact, just like Paul of Tarsus, he co-opted it, claiming Jesus became a curse for us all.

​By equating the Roman Cross with the Jewish cursed 'tree,' the Church would have absorbed the memory of his Jewish-style execution. Did they suppress his stoning in favour of the cross? We can see this confirms how the Jewish execution narrative was seen as a major threat. The claim that Jews insisted on stoning is preserved from 1st-century Tannaitic tradition. Yet, there's no archaeological evidence of crucifixion in this century across Judea except for one heel bone (Yehohanan). Early Christian art tyically shows the shephard or the fish and even the early church teaching, the Didache (Hoole n. d) (late 1st-early 2nd century), features no mention of crucifixion. It was not until around 150 CE when the punishment became the most widely accepted execution method for Jesus in written sources. 

We will continue with this gap later. 

The Harsh Reality of History 

Let’s start with the historical Pontius Pilate. He often denied Jewish natives. In fact, just as much as Rome's barbarous reputation itself, this old knight of the Samnites was a cruel oppressor, which both historical and religious sources equally illustrate it.

Pilate's Jewish subjects hated him! Why? He over taxed them, and showed little to no respect for their culture and laws, he provoked riots by displaying images of the emperor across their country. It was not uncommon for him to crucify people without a trial. In fact, this man stood trial himself in Rome for cruelty! Think about that! A complete and utter sociopath who enjoyed hurting and spiting the people he oppressed. 

Britannica describes Pilate as eventually removing the offending images, but only after he had threatened disgruntled Jewish citizens with death after they refused to halt their protests; they showed bravery, a quality he found admirable. 

Be that as it is, Rome never kept kosher rules, nor adhered to the sabbath. Rome did not respect the laws of Briton either when it violated Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni's two daughter's. Neither did it bend the knee to Israel when it built its own pagan monument inside their Temple! These things are significantly insensitive and miles away from the caring Pilate morally wrestling with executing what he saw as an innocent man! That's why I say, the Crucifixion narrative is not necessarily accurate. 

    "The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not simply a neutral recording of what Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers shaped and interpreted Jesus' message in light of their own theological agendas..."

                                        Bart Ehrman (2014) 

Could Pilate Have Historically Sanctioned The Jewish Authority To Deal With Jesus?

This kind of theory isn't popular among most scholars or religious people who typically support historical Crucifixion. Look, even today, for example, most experts still think clinical depression is caused by seratonin-like imbalances, but in reality it's multiple causes. So when I highlight something akin to how the bible doesn't convey Jesus as having any beef at all with Rome, it's a part of my overall argument against the established consesus! In all truth, experts do say Rome had a practice of leaving complex domestic disputes such as cultural and religious law to the natives. In this case it was the Sanhedrin or religious leaders of Jerusalem. 

'Please, prosecute our enemy?' 

'No, go away and do your own bloody trial!' 

According to this religious council in the religious writing, Jesus was accused of calling himself 'King of the Jews'. That's a messianic blasphemy from a prophetic perspective. The term is used fifteen times dependant on the version you read. Yes, fifteen, two places, nothing in his three years of ministry but just the nativity and the trial and execution - at least 50% is retrojection. We don't really know the full reality. I featured the Pandera tradition in my 'was Jesus a cult leader?' blog, here. Tabor (2006) questions the reliability of the Crucifixion in the gospels in his own work. 

People Were So Easily Upset!

Against the prevailing view of most scholars, E.P. Sanders discovered the diverse beliefs of Second Temple Judaism, including legalistic and covenantal elements. He shed new light on Paul’s communication about grace held much broader Jewish context - sometimes we are all mistaken! The Pandera tradition, always in question, is seen as a mere polemic claiming Jesus was stoned to death on the eve of the passover, and that he was hung on a tree. This is a biased source just like the bible. 

Undeniably, stoning and being hanged on the cursed tree was still an ancient Jewish punishment for blasphemy, the actual charge of Jesus! Why couldn't it have happened? Why deny it? Bart Ehrman has blogged about this alongside James Tabor! To hang, also served as a euphemism for the Roman way of doing crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a valid Jewish post mortem exhibition on 'the cursed tree,' arbori suspendere, which encompassed and summised the entire punishment process—it dishonoured the criminal. Killed and then exhibited. Similar to regular crucifixion, it was done outside the city walls. Most importantly, always before dark. Leaving the dead outside throughout the night offended their God, and they deemed it to be unlawful. 

Stoning was vindicta publica, the general public would execute the unfortunate accuse. Amongst other things in the Babylonian Talmud, Jesus was called sorcerer, and accused of leading the people astray and religious men insisted he was aligned with the devil. After he was stoned for blasphemy, he was hung up for all to see! It aligns perfectly with historical practices. Outside sources say Jews killed Jesus, not Rome. This is vindicta publica. 

'... the wise king of the Jews – they killed him and did not take thought. But God took thought for them, and their land was desolated because of them'.

              Mara Bar Serapion 1st century Pagan

According to the theological version Pilate could not find Jesus guilty of a crime against Rome, washing his hands of the case, which suggests something: At historical source the Jewish judicial path was blasphemy, its legitimate. The speedy retreival of the body in the bible echoes the practice of the condemned being hanged on the tree and then removed before nightfall.

If we acknowledge theological retrojection exists around the trial and especially with the fictional Barabas character, a much valid story comes into focus. Experts like E.P. Sanders and Theissen may share similar ideas, but they do not endorse the stoning and hanging. 

Around again, back to 150 CE, in his first apology to the Roman Emperor Pius, Justyn Martyr wrote that Jews accused Christians of atheism and impiety. This is where the Christian dogma broke away from Jewish communities. Of course, some Jews insinuated Jesus as being the first born of Satan and a deceiver (Dodds, and Reith, 2023) but others venerated their own ideas of the man. However, surprisingly descriptions we read in the New Testament align with Talmudic criticisms of Jesus. There is another side of the story in oral legacy of early Jewish sources - all describe his stoning and hanging. Most sources that correspond are not biblical.

Saint Asaph Cathedral Skeleton

For example, we know it says in deuteronomy 21:22–23: A man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God. This was followed in jewish sources and alluded to in the bible and by Church Fathers.

Paul shaped Christian theology by referring to this law in Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' the language he used can mean the tree or the cross. He knew.

The Apocalypse of Peter (Nag Hammadi) But I saw him whom they seized, as he was about to be stoned by them, and impaled on a tree (ξύλον) ... I saw the living Jesus... he whom you saw on the tree (ξύλον), joyful and laughing, is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshy part, which is the substitute.'

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. 

At the very least this appears valid.

Conclusion 

We dont really know what happened, it's a bit of a Schrödingers Christ situation. You have to ask yourself: is the theory of this blog feasible? If your answer is yes, then biblical reliability isn't the default starting assumption for you anymore - it's a claim that requires proof, a sign of critical thinking. 

Consider the embarrassment argument: the assumption that Gospel accounts of Jesus's Crucifixion are historically true because early Christians would not have invented such a shameful and disgraceful execution for their Messiah. 

It gives you an alternative: being executed by the very people he was meant to liberate! If Jesus was stoned to death by Jews and hanged from the cursed tree, it certainly captures the pinnacle of disgrace from within his own cultures perspective. The emerging church was a growing number of antisemitic gentiles - Jewish execution was significantly more salt in the wound than Rome's reluctant Crucifixion. 

The authentic letters of Paul used both primary Greek terms for tree/wood interchangeably, especially for both phases of execution:

STAUROS (σταυρός): A stake, a tree or even a pole. Something to attach a person as punishment.

XULON (ξύλον): Tree/wood (Galatians 3:13: 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'). See how he emphasises the wooden, organic nature of the display apparatus. Display tree - wooden post/tree for hanging his body. 

It's a matter of how you form your individual beliefs. 

 

References

Blomberg, Craig L. (2007) "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." IVP Academic.

Carrier, Richard. (2014) "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Codex Sinaiticus. British Library, 300 AD

Editors of Encyclopedia Briticannica. "Pontius Pilate" Britannica 1st Jun 2024

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014)  "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee." HarperOne.

Dodds, M, and Reith, G (2023) "First And Second Apologies of Justyn Martyr" Dalcassian.

Sanders, E.P. (1993) "The Historical Figure of Jesus." Penguin Books.

Crossan, John Dominic. Lecture on "Paul and the Creation of Christian Theology."

Papyrus 75. Bodmer Library, 200 AD. 

Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. HarperCollins. 

The Didache. (no date) Translated by Charles H. Hoole. Sacred-Texts.com

Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. (1996). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press.

Historical Analysis: Did Jesus Decompose on the Cross?

What if Gospel Accounts are Theological and Jesus Experienced a Typical Crucifixion? 

A Speculative History or a Possible Reality? 

Disclaimer: My normal casual blogging mode went cooky with this one! Someone got me backing up my claims with actual sources. These Jesus topics definitely aren't easy.

7 to 10 min read

The traditional Christian story of the crucifixion is deeply ingrained in our Western consciousness. Crucifixes hang from gold chains, beautify our skin and stand central on t-shirts. However, to be honest, I love to offer an alternative theory showcasing a historical human Jesus, because these accounts mostly serve theological, and not historical purposes! We know Roman aristocracy considered early Christian's to be anti-state criminals. We can reasonably hypothesise, that if Jesus was crucified by Pilate for somehow committing crimes against Rome, he would have decomposed on his cross on display to dissuade others. That was the Roman way. 

Understanding Crucifixion in the Roman World

Crucifixion in the Roman world was a punishment reserved for those perceived as the lowest of society, and also, those who posed a threat to the social order, namely, Rome itself. After the Spartacus rebellion, for example, Crassus crucified 6000 slaves along the Appian Way to make a point (Appian, Civil Wars). The bodies were often left hanging for extended periods, emphasizing the dire consequences of being enemies of Rome. Exceptions to this practice, such as removal for burial, were rare and dependent on factors like family petitions or the social status of the condemned.

The Early Christian Movement and Roman Criminality

The early Christian movement was perceived as a significant threat to both the social order of Rome and the religious order of the Sanhedrin. As such, Christians were often brought to trial on charges of 'hatred towards mankind,' atheism, or other accusations of disrupting societal norms (Pliny's Letters to Trajan). The public nature of punishments, including crucifixion and mob stoning, served to deter potential followers and maintain the status quo.

Non-Christian Sources on Jesus and the Crucifixion

Non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, are thought to be valuable external insights into the life and death of Jesus Christ, but are they? Tacitus, for instance, confirms the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Annals, 15.44) but he, like many others are highly likely just repeating religious narrative - it was abundant, yet still spreading across the world. On the other hand, the details of Jesus' burial are not mentioned in Tacitus leaving room for speculation and alternative interpretation.

The Gospels as Theological, not Historical, Narratives. 

The Gospels were written to convey the theological significance of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, not to provide a historically accurate account. The accounts of Jesus' burial, therefore, should be understood in this context. For instance, the empty tomb narrative is pivotal to the resurrection story, a cornerstone of Christian faith, but lacks external corroboration. The inconsistencies across the Gospels further underscore their theological, rather than historical, motivations.

Synthesizing the Evidence: Jesus Left on the Cross?

When we synthesize the historical, non-Christian, and theological evidence, the possibility of Jesus Christ being left on the cross aligns with the consistent practice of Roman crucifixion. Its purpose of deterring the remaining followers away from sedition might have been considered a success by Pilate. 

Conclusion

I aimed to spark some thoughts about an alternative crucifixion of Jesus Christ. One that aligns more closely with Roman historical practices and non-Christian thinking. This theory underscores the importance of critical engagement with religious narratives and their historical contexts. Further research into this aspect of early Christianity and Roman history is recommended.

Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? 

Did Jesus Study Greek Philosophy? The Hidden Influence on His Teachings

Alternative Narratives of Christ: A Socratic Saviour? 

Did Jesus Enjoy the Sages?

Disclaimer: This isn't another of those off-the-cuff posts. Fair warning - this is one of those deep-dive blog posts that tries to be a bit academic but isn't quite there! 

7 to 9 min read 

A Little Background 

If we want to make a fair argument about how Jesus might have embraced Greek philosophy, we must understand its influence on his teachings! Also we should appreciate the origins of these Greek influences in Israel, let's consider the following:

Alexander the Great introduced Greek culture making Israel a cultural syncretism, it lasted well beyond his era! Jewish communities were also living in Greece in those times! However, around 160-170 BCE in Israel, Judas Maccabeus fought against Greek assimilation, succeeding and finally establishing his family dynasty called the Hasmoneans. Unfortunately, after internal conflict, it all ended. Roman conquest happened. Pompey Magnus in 63 BCE marched in and Greek and Roman culture planted itself firmly, despite the resistance. 

Greek Settlements in Galilee 

During the Jesus years, cities like Tiberias and Sepphoris existed in Galilee. Sepphoris was adorned with Greek architecture and cultural influences—the ruins still exist. Galileans were rural people and this gave them direct access to Greek philosophy. Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Platonism would have informed Nazareth, Capernaum and Magdala. The hellenic worldview integrated with old Rabbinic paradigm. Even figures like Paul of Tarsus and the author of John’s Gospel used specific philosophical themes in their writings. 

Sepphoris 

John 8:32: Jesus’s teaching, 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,' parallels Plato’s idea that philosophy liberates the soul (Phaedo 67d).

Matthew 6:34: Jesus's advice to not worry about tomorrow resonates with Seneca’s Stoic emphasis on focusing on the present (Letters from a Stoic).

The Anti-Jesus Sources 

The Talmudic portrayal of Jesus 500 CE stems from an older verbal 'Pantera' tradition, pre-dating Celsus 120-130 CE, who mentioned the polemics therein, in his writings against the Christians. The Talmud includes accusations of Jesus violating Jewish law, burning food on the Sabbath. Yes, it sounds petty, but there are more to these things than I can cover here. The offence of food burning, seems to imply that his prosecutors were framing him of practicing some kind of pagan ritual. In the bible the man was called a Samaritan. Orthodox Jews recognised these people as heretics—this snobbery is a common theme. 

Tension Between Orthodox Jews and Hellenised Townsfolk: Greco-Roman was the Culture of The Oppressors

The Galilean in the Talmud was considered to have 'led the Jews astray'. What is interesting is the polemic about him burning his food in public; is it a reference to how Greeks made their offerings to their gods? It also points at poor behaviours like consuming it openly, an attempt at discrediting any divine rumours by pinning old hellenised stereotypes onto him. 

Overlaps and Striking Similarity

Philo of Alexandria said the soul is divine and virtuous people are 'sons of God,' reflecting Stoic ideas of the divine Logos and universal reason. This sounds like Christianity. 

The universalism and inner spirituality of Jesus, was at odds with strict ritual observances that later followed. We know Jesus was not welcomed at all by religious leaders because it contrasted with covenantal law going back to Abraham and Moses. The shift aligns with philosophical values surrounding personal virtue and the universality of the divine. 

Heraclitus: “The divine is the logos, present within all things, and accessible through inner reflection.” (Fragments, 50)

Jesus: "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Plato: “He who loves the truth and is gentle in spirit is the true philosopher, akin to the divine.” (Republic, 514a)

Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Tiberias Galilee

People who lived within synchronised Jewish communities achieved new visions surrounding moral and intellectual enlightenment. They could consider one another as 'sons of God' under such paradigms. When God, Eloah or Elohim could be interchangeable with Platonic and Stoic ideals. This synthesis of divine qualities may easily have shaped the Jesus movement, driving theological discourse with the rigid Rabbinic Orthodoxy of the time. 

Conclusion

The Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) introduced subtle philosophical perspectives into Jewish discourse. Torah-studying Galileans inherited generations of Zeus, Hermes and Socrates, and all that comes with it! A synthesis of the philosophical and theological took form, poles apart from the prevailing Jewish norms of the Sanhedrin in Roman occupied Jerusalem. 

However, free choice means Galileans had the choice to remain strictly dedicated to the Torah. Assuming Jesus was a hellenised Nazarene is understandable but a leap. You see, the scriptures were written decades after the historical Jesus was killed. Later hellenic gospel writers and church fathers held Platonic-like perspectives, just as later gnostics did. Echoes of such theo-philosophical explanations passed across the following centuries, found in various sects such as Manichaeism, Mandaeism, Mystical judaism and Hermeticism, for example. 

That being said, we have a chicken and egg type situation: which came first? The hellenic-Jewish preacher, or the Jewish preacher who was later reinterpreted by the gentile Christian movement? 

If Jesus had no Greek inspired philosophical arguments to fuel his arguments with the Sanhedrin, it leaves little ammunition for events to play out as they did. He could have represented integrated and mixed cultures in that political climate. Experts are sure a historical Jesus existed. 

The Shoelace Thing: When Intellectuals Meet The Intelligent

The Difference Between Being Clever and Being Wise

The Uni Boffin vs. Handy Man Joe... 

6 to 8 min read

Let's try and nail this one down for good, shall we? The difference between an intellectual character and an individual with practical skills, comes down to the nature and application of their respective talents. 

The family intellectual will usually indulge in a few academic ideas, anything, be it philosophical, theological, the sciences, or politics; material which is usually evidence-based or well sourced. They think. Intellectuals develop opinions and strengthen them by finding parallels from valued sources. It's an academic thing. 

Yes, critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis of information all factor into their disciplined approach to seeking truth. Why? Well, the intellect is usually associated with academic pursuits, and the intellectual might also be familiar with research and scholarly material and methodology. It fits their world view and habitual way of consuming information.

The Non-Intellectual Person Who is Good at Doing Stuff...

You also have to give credit to those people who developed proficient practical skills! They exhibit both knowledge and intelligence when performing specific jobs. They solve problems, create things or both! The adjective word 'intellectual' does not apply to these roles in the same manner. In many ways, a taskmaster or DIY expert will have different skillsets that involve both knowledge and hands on applied intelligence. 

The Self-Educated Intellectual Is Awesome! 

Now hold on! It's important to put it out there, 'intellectuals' are not exclusively the highest of the high! No, you don't have to be an eyebrow posturing YouTube debater with a posh degree! Forget pompous professors in tweed jackets! 

Have you ever argued politics online or down the pub? Tried to digest a little of your country's history or wrestled with the finer details of the mind? Bosh! That's your intellectual flame. Don't forget, you can be a cleaner or a carer and also an insightful intellectual. 

Intelligence can Pack a Punch! 

Show some appreciation for our athletes! This class of intelligence is made up of both spatial awareness, trained muscle memory, and mental strategy. Consider the athletic IQ involved in sports; they use spatial awareness, split-second decision-making under intense pressure. Athletes must adapt to the game, they also have to practice coordination, reading the game and reacting in time—high speed calculation is not easy.

Mike Tyson is an example of boxing genius! The same goes for the unsung mechanic who can fix any engine with his eyes closed! You recognise intelligence when you appreciate the skills people have. The skilled barista whipping up latte art and delighting customers under pressure! Intelligent people are not necessarily intellectual. Intellectuals are not necessarily intelligent. 

Our Intelligence Zig-Zags! 

After learning about intellectualism recently, I stopped buying into the old fallacy that intellectuals are the smartest. You see, intelligence zig-zags, and it's as diverse as the entire catalogue of Funko Pop figures! Bright sparks, intellectual or not, often struggle with some very basic tasks: Einstein was notably absent-minded and forgetful, he struggled with his shoelaces and personal relationships. 

Isaac Newton often neglected himself and could not cook. An intellectual type character might hold that superiority complex and be distant in their thoughts juggling ideas and arguments. I think that's a fair point to conclude on, I don't want to write anymore. We all have strengths and weaknesses, sorted.  

Theology Down The Park: Is Muscular The Answer?

Muscular Christianity: Saviour or Spoiler for Europe?

Unusual Gatherings at Speakers Corner

7 to 9 min read

Bob the Builder

Speaker's Corner is situated in Hyde Park, London. It has long been a place for open debate and free expression. Here we can expect to find Bob Soco, who seems like a nice man. However, some may find him distasteful when he raises his volume in his debates and uses sneaky sophism. Butting in and demanding evidence is comical before the brief moment of wordless bible page turning. It is an unusual gathering to watch. 

Bob really is a compelling character who could fit beautifully into a novel or film. Everyone should see the dialogue heat up; respect and self-restraint are called-for in that place, it can seem like it's balancing on a knife edge! Soco Studio captures all the footage of Bob as he dismantles Islamic views from his right-wing Christian paradigm. The videos are edited before being uploaded onto YouTube. 

Bob 'the Builder' Soco has praised Tommy Robinson, and stands firmly patriotic, proud of his English heritage—fair play. It is almost like a continuation of those old Atheism vs. Theism debates common during Christopher Hitchins days. Instead, Bob Soco brings Christianity vs. Islam, but also he'll oppose the liberal media and secularism. Of course, his debates are selectively uploaded for the target audience. I doubt Bob Soco would upload videos like this one below, where he is outplayed:

Response to Bob Soco's Blog here: Why Europe Needs a Muscular Christianity

Embellishing his blog, Bob Soco has an excellent image of what appears to be a cool looking modern-styled Templar Knight with a firearm. Perhaps, just for respect, we should not assume this is the actual image he had in mind when he literally refers to 'Muscular Christianity'. 

The Political Divisions

As I write this, the UK has protested and counter-protested and many criminals rioted. The hundreds of people who have peacefully expressed legitimate concerns about mass immigration, knife crime and Islamism are tarred with the same far-right brush brandished by the British government, leftists and mainstream media. Sadly, grandmothers and grandfathers, moderates and neutrals have all been recorded by social media content creators, one in particular filmed himself being dragged into the same police vans!

Now, go back to Soco, who, before all of this, called Islam an evil religion; think of all those non-violent, non-muslim moderates, blameless of any crime sat in the back of a police riot van on the evening of the Westminster protest. There are extremes and lines of division entrenched across the country.

The Righteous Anger of a Christian? 

Bob's prosecution and labelling of an entire religion as 'evil' is not just overly simplistic, but ignorant of the complexity, cultures, and nuances within any faith! Historical atrocities of Christianity clearly exist, such as the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition. The church castrated choir boys and targeted children for unspeakable crimes—no single religion holds a monopoly on moral virtue! 

Simplistic religious comparisons or judgments are often inaccurate and unfair. I don't know why Bob doesn't recognise that despite all of our faults and virtues, people bring their own ideas and interpretations to their religions? There has to be a better way? 

'You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.' 

                                    in the Bible somewhere

The Builders Blog

In his blog, Bob Soco says Europe will need Muscular Christianity, especially due to it's low birth rates. I don't know what this kind of Christianity entails precisely, but it is supposed to defend us against his perceived threat coming from his baneful 'elites' who support Islam. It is not invalid logic, but is it correct? 

His blog accuses the immigration policies of liberal politicians and secularism for Europe's decline, while pointing at that old Jewish-focused conspiracy theory blaming Jews for distraction and manipulation. Bob offers no meaty evidence. It is a dry read and confusing in places, but his overuse of 'elites' and 'super elites' are the familiar conspiracy theory buzzwords we've all heard before! 

This passionate character points to the fact that immigration is high, a risk, he said, will change European culture. This is a fair concern and vital for political discussion, but not a beefy counter religious intervention as he proposes. Although we might be on the same page on some points we cannot expect Christian forces to pressurise Europeans into breeding more! What denominations will make Islamic couples use contraception? Church and State need to be separate. 

Is Secularism Really That Bad? 

Western secularism is a principle that emerged from the enlightenment, and it guides the Western world, shaping British culture. It has promoted scientific fact, while also granting a multi-faith country. It also supported Catholicism in the 17th century, as well as the other major faiths today. It is not anti-theistic, many western secularists have a religion. 

That being said, such principles could still restrict religious practices that are perceived to be harmful to anyone, and end public funding for such activities; it can influence the regulation of immigration wisely. Some of these elected secular politicians have not listened to the people when they should have. This does not mean western secularism is the enemy. 

Reflections of Itself

As we have seen, Bob 'the Builder' Soco genuinely portrays Islam as a kind of clashing civilization holding dangerous values. Indeed, we can say, similar sentiments may have once been held by his own Saxon ancestors when their holy sites were vandalised by Emperor Charlemagne. This Christian Holy Roman muscle did what Bob is accusing the Islamic folk of doing in his videos; they butchered people—pagan Germanic people. These people died because they did not care to convert to his Jesus religion. 

My Conclusion... 

Not all Christians/Muslims are violent, yet both religions have profound histories in conquest. If you accept varying degrees of anti-social behaviour do exist across our vast spectrum of religiosity, you'll see that when a Christian demonises Islam it's simply another antisocial act in itself! Don't ignore that both the Quran and the Bible have passages that can be interpreted as extreme! There is moral religious inconsistency. 

Primarily, we aren't Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, but human. These labels are another layer, clothing for the soul, but yet, often weaponised. There's quite a radical feel to Bob's blog and his YouTube channel—things must have been heating up for some time in London. I hope it improves soon.