Unbroken is the story of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic class runner who served in World War II as a bombardier on a B-24. I found this book  hard to put down. Usually I have three or four books going at the same time as well as a few magazines but in this case they all fell to the wayside because I wanted to use my time to see what came next in the Zamperini story. Since the book is a New York Times best seller I’m probably not alone in saying that Laura Hildebrand tells a compelling and well-researched story.

I honestly hesitate to write any kind of review of this book because I don’t want to ruin it for those thinking of reading it. On the other hand I’d like to say some good things about it to encourage the reading of it!

First, it’s a great sports story (Part One) set against the back drop of the Great Depression. I’ve never had much of an interest in track and field but I found that incidental in learning what kind of skill and determination it takes to become an Olympic class competitor. Louis Zamperini ran in the 1936 Olympics in Germany and was training to run in 1940 Tokyo Olympics when the Olympics were cancelled because of Japanese aggression. He was a home-town legend and actually gained national recognition, a fact that would become important during the war with Japan.

In Part Two we find Louie in the Army Air Force trained as a bombardier in a B-24, an airplane that many airmen considered a flying coffin.

One of the strengths of this book is how Hildebrand weaves in information pertinent to the story without disrupting the story line itself.

The Flying Coffin, B-24 Liberator

For example, the fact that many airmen considered the B-24 a death trap is set against the fact that more airmen died in accidents than in action with the enemy. Hildebrand reports that in the Pacific Oceans Area Theater where Zamperini served that six planes were lost due to accidents for every plane lost due to enemy actions. Six to One!

This ratio changed over the course of the war but the accident rate was always more than the rate of loss due to enemy action. The B-24 in which Zamperini flew was notorious for in flight break downs which is exactly what happened to Zamperini and his best friend pilot-Russel Allen Philips known simply as “Phil.”

Zamperini’s first B-24 got shot up on a mission so he and Phil were reassigned to another B-24 that was used for errands. While on a search for another  missing B-24 and probable accident Zamperini’s B-24 developed engine problems and went down in the Pacific and only he and Phil and one other man survived the crash.

Surviving the crash did not mean being rescued and Part Three is all about survival in shark infested waters with little to no food all the while drifting toward Japanese held territory.

Another of the strengths of the book is Hildebrand’s writing ability in helping the reader identify with the characters. Her writing style is such that one can almost imagine what it could be like to be adrift in a flimsy raft, slowly starving to death and being constantly circled by sharks. After a Japanese bomber spots the raft it strafed them sinking one of the two rafts the men had tied together and damaging the second. What follows is nothing short of frantic.

Miraculously none of the men is hit by the strafing plane but they have to patch the surviving raft and at the same time fend off the sharks who smell blood. Then they are caught in a typhoon! Had the story ended here with a rescue by the US Navy you’d still have an incredible story of survival.

Instead they are “rescued” (Part Four) by the Japanese Navy and the horrors of what it meant to be captured by the Japanese are revealed in graphic detail.I knew something about Japanese brutality to prisoners of war (Bataan Death Marc,. Bridge Over the River Kwai) but with Hildebrand’s writing you almost live it personally with Zamperini.

As I reported elsewhere in this blog my father served in the US Army at the end of the World War II. He was being trained in 1945 for the invasion of Japan. By that stage of the war everyone knew that the Japanese had every intent of fighting to the last man, woman and child. Most everyone also knew to fall into the hands of the Japanese as a prisoner of war meant you had an excellent chance of not surviving the experience.

Hildebrand states that 37% of all Americans captured by the Japanese died either of beatings, purposeful execution, starvation, disease, or being worked to death. The number compares to just 1% of all Americans being held by the Germans or Italians. British Commonwealth troops captured by the Japanese did not do much better but it does seem the Japanese went well out their way to brutalize Americans.

Such was the case with Zamperini who was singled out by the guard known as “The Bird.”

My dad had a distrust and dislike for the Japanese until his dying day. He refused to ever buy a Japanese car. I used to tease him about it but I came to realize he had been trained to hate the Japanese as his instructors pointed out how brutal the Japanese were. My dad told me of the great sense of relief he and the men he was training with had once they learned we dropped the two atomic bombs that finally ended the War in the Pacific.

Zamperini too learned of the end of the war after the bombs were dropped and for those being held by the Japanese it was not necessarily an immediate relief. This was because the Japanese had issued an “all kill” order which meant should the allies invade Japanese held territory all prisoners would be killed and their bodies hidden. They Japanese had already practiced the all kill order in a number of places but should Japan itself be invaded the order would be carried out on a massive scale.

Today, some short-sighted individuals question the morality of dropping the A-bombs on Japanese cities. In my opinion these critics live in a fantasy world with little understanding of what it meant to be involved in a live and death struggle with another nation.

It ended World War II

War in and of itself is an atrocity and both sides committed atrocities against the other but that says nothing of the scale Imperial Japan was capable of (see Rape of Nanking for example). The Japanese fully intended to fight to the last man, woman and child and take as many allied soldiers with them as they could. They also intended to kill all prisoners of war and as I said in some places did. The A-bombs stopped it all and just perhaps the world will take pause before pursuing a nuclear option again (although do not bet on Iran who seem to possess the same kind of attitudes Imperial Japan did).

Fortunately, the all kill order did not come and Zamperini was rescued and returned to the States as a bit of a celebrity. But the story does not end here.

Zamperini’s wartime experiences especially regarding the torture he endured at the hands of “The Bird” become his demons (Part Five).

How these demons are finally overcome will come as a surprise to many and an impossibility for others.

Here’s a hint:

The Reverend Billy Graham in the 1940′s. The ending is indeed surprising!

Related articles

• In Honor of Veteran’s Day, Review of Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken – A Moving True Story to Read & Weep (thehistorylady.wordpress.com)
• Unbroken…so let me into the Club (joyinthemoments.com)

HMAS Canberra, lost Aug. 1942

The Canberra was lost as were a number of American ships. In honor of the Australian sacrifice the USN recommissioned an American Heavy Cruiser the USS Canberra, the only time in USN history that a capital ship has been named for a city outside of the US.

Italian tanks captured by the Aussies in 1941, hence the “Roo” markings. I’ve always had an interest in Australia’s role in WW2. Great country with great soldiers.

Aussies with captured Italian Tanks_1941

President Obama is a liberal progressive to use their own terms. His liberal theology drives his liberal politics (when it seems to suit him) and his leanings come out when he tries to use the Bible or Jesus to make a point.

While he has never claimed to have gone to seminary he did spend considerable time attending Jeremiah Wright’s church, a church that unabashedly teaches something called “liberation theology.” Liberation theology does not let Scripture speak for itself in its contenxt and as a result the Scripture is interpreted through a pre-determined theological lens that supports what progressives call social justice or social fairness.

The best way I can describe the approach is by saying some interpret Scripture via their predetermined theological assumptions and thus arrive at a predetermined conclusion that supports the assumption. This is true on the political right and left (liberation theology is staunching left wing).

Let me illustrate my basic point of how a predetermined theology predetermines an interpretation and application of a given passage by citing President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast:

–President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’”–

Image via Wikipedia

Obama’s phrase “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required” seems to be drawn from the gospels although he gave no citation. Obama concludes from this phrase that Jesus would raise taxes on the wealthy.

Mark 4:25 seems to be the passage he was alluding to:

For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Mark 4:25 ESV)

Obama says his Christianity (actually his interpretation of Christianity) informs his views and this allows him to use Mark 4:25 to say something that it clearly does not.

Let’s look at the passage in it’s immediate context:

And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a stand? For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Mark 4:21-25 ESV)

Even a casual observersation of the immediate context illustrates that taxes is not the issue.

Note that the verses immediately after Mark 4:25 say nothing about taxes either.

And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
(Mark 4:26-29 ESV)

In fact, Mark Chapter Four never mentions taxes at all.

To be fair to the President it should be noted that Mark 4:25 corresponds language wise to Matthew 25:29 (parable of the talents)  and Luke 19:26 (parable of the ten minas) so perhaps there we can find references to Jesus saying he would tax the rich more in those chapters.

A quick trip to those references and examining their immediate context would show that Jesus is clearly not discussing taxes under the Caesars much less communicating a justification for raising the taxes on the wealthy in 21st century America.

My point is this. Obama is reading into Scripture something that is not there. His lens of interpretation is liberation theology and what the progressives call social justice or social fairness. This does not mean the government cannot raise the taxes of the rich; it simply means that use the Scripture to justify it simply is not right if one really cares what the Bible says.

As I said earlier the misuse of Scripture is not limited to the progressive left although they are usually the worst offenders primarily with their social fairness dogma.

The Bible does discuss taxes (for example, Matt. 22:17, Mark 12:14, passages that answer the question is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar-yes it is, and Rom. 13:6-7 which says yes, pay what is owed to Caesar).

As a point aside, there was nothing fair about the Roman tax system. The Romans were equal opportunity exploiters so I find it ironic that progressives refer to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament to promote fairness. Jesus does indeed say pay what is owed but it does not mean he thought it was fair.

If we really wanted to be fair in how we raise taxes we’d adopt some kind of flat tax and everyone would have “skin in the game” so-to-speak. Please note I’m not using a Scripture verse to justify a flat tax either although I’ve seen some use the 10% tithe to make an argument for a flat tax. This is inaccurate as well but for different reasons and its an argument for another article.

The bottom line is that both right and left do misuse Scripture although the left is by far the worst offenders as you can see from my simple illustration of how Obama misused the passage.. What else can you conclude when the President says that Jesus would raise taxes on the rich when his referent passage says nothing about taxes?

Related articles

• Jesus and the Rich Guys_Part 1 (broeder10.wordpress.com)
• Jesus and the Rich Guys_Part Two (broeder10.wordpress.com)
• Commentary on the National Prayer Breakfast (prayerfullivingnewsblog.wordpress.com)
• Christianity & taxes (geneveith.com)
• Obama at Prayer Breakfast: Jesus Wants Us to Tax the Rich (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Sola Scriptura John MacArthur (hearshisvoice.wordpress.com)
• Matthew 25 and More Adventures in Missing the Point… (divinesatisfaction.com)

The Judge sites St. Thomas Aquinas as the modern articulator of the Just War Theory although it was Augustine way back in the 5th Century A.D. who first postulated it. It’s hardly surprising that Augustine would give the issue thought since he lived at such a time that the Western Roman Empire was literally falling apart with various parts of   being over run by Germanic barbarians. Christianity had been the official religion of the empire for roughly 100 years so it follows that Augustine would be concerned about people rightly defending themselves from aggression.

Augustine

Since Augustine’s time western nations have more or less tried to keep within the limits of the criteria of a just war with an emphasis on the defensive nature of war as originally suggested by Augustine. The idea being that governments are responsible to defend their nations from attacks by other nations.

The idea lines up with Scripture in that a government does have the responsibility to punish evil (1 Pe. 2:14; Rom. 13:3-4). In this way, a government is a servant for good when it protects its citizens from evil aggression.

Judge Napolitano acknowledges the premise of a defensive war just as Ron Paul, a fellow libertarian does. The Judge further criticizes the current President for the undeclared war in Libya, the winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama and Bush) as well as Johnson’s involvement in Vietnam and Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia, all of which, according the Judge were not constitutional because Congress did not declare war nor did they fit the criteria of a Just War.

This is why governments sometimes choose to call wars “police actions” since “police actions” do not need an act of congress to execute (or do they?). The Korean War is a case in point, marketed as a UN police action where the US provided the vast majority of troops. It was a hardly a “police action” and as far as I know the UN didn’t arrest any North Korean or Chi Com aggressors.

Libertarians like Paul and Napolitano certainly have a point when they point out, for instance, that Libya was hardly a threat to the USA so when Obama ordered the bombing it was not to defend the USA. In fact, the administration called the Libyan war “police action” using the word “kinetic” instead of police as if that would fool anyone. Semantics further cloud things.

Right now, the big deal seems to be Iran. Some Libertarians argue that Iran is not a threat to US and therefore we should stop our saber-rattling even as Iran increases the rattling of their sabers.

On one level they make a point. It would be a while before Iran was in a position to directly threaten the continental US with nuclear weapons. But to leave it at that (and I’m not suggesting that Paul or Napolitano are leaving it at that) is to over simplify a defensive war in the modern age. Like it or not, radical Islam is a threat to world peace if there is such a thing and I’d rather we’d defend our freedom before a nation-state like Iran has the ways and means to produce destruction on a scale the world has not yet seen.

There is such a thing as evil and while all nations certainly can have their fair share of evil, some are simply more evil than others and that needs to be defended against. And that’s  the way I see it.

Frankly, I was shocked. I knew that the young man didn’t like Stalin because of the mass killings but seemed okay with his totalitarian ideas not realizing that mass killings tend to go hand-in-hand with totalitarianism of any stripe.

I was curious as to where this younger man got his ideas apart from his interest in Russian WW2 History so I asked him about his public school education and in particular what he had learned about comparative political\economic systems. His answer, in a round about way was not much. When I brought up the issue of the US Constitution all I got was a vague nod of agreement that there was one.

The experience with the young man was refreshed in my mind when I read this story in the Huffington Post, a liberal progressive outlet of the first order.

The story has to do with Catholic Schools closing in Pennsylvania, partly because they are disqualified from a choice voucher program. That’s something that is common in many parts of the country.

The argument however quickly became about something else. The something else could fall under the heading the ACLU versus a Catholic Bishop.

Apparently, the Bishop in Pennsylvania remarked that…

“In totalitarian governments, they would love our system,” McFadden told WHTM-TV. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all those tried to establish a monolith so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.”

To whit the ACLU replied…

In response, Andy Hoover, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, notes to the Scranton Atheism Examiner that public school systems don’t indoctrinate children, as they are told to be neutral on matters of religious belief, whereas Catholic schools can teach Catholic faith. Hoover opposes school voucher programs, in which public dollars could be shifted to pay for low-income students to attend private schools.

“I don’t think Hitler would appreciate children learning about free speech or freedom of religion, he also wouldn’t appreciate Jewish children being educated.” Hoover tells the Examiner, adding that a democratic system of open public school meetings with elected positions is “completely opposite” of a totalitarian government. “Any time someone brings up Hitler in a debate, you know they’ve lost.“

Despite the rather obvious fear of having young people exposed to any kind of religious faith the ACLU consistently misses the broader point, probably on purpose, since they frequently make camp with fellow social progressive/socialists/ anti-Christian Marxists.

If the public school system is a democratic system with elected positions is the definition of something not totalitarian then the ACLU does not know its history regarding Adolf Hitler. That’s because Adolf was freely elected by the German people in a democratic system.

The rest of course is history. Adolf Hitler led a totalitarian state not unlike that of Stalin and he was freely elected to do so. The issue is about power, not the particular means of gaining power  but how that power is used once gained.

The public school system in the US is largely controlled by social progressives that we call Democrats. The Democrats are controlled by something we call “unions.” This is something that is particularly crystal clear in my home state of Wisconsin and it is the primary reason our Governor is facing recall. Governor Walker has succeeded in what no governor has even tried to do and that is break the power arrangement between the social progressive unions and the social progressive Democrats who have enjoyed a rather cozy power arrangement of scratching one another’s back at the expense of the taxpayers of Wisconsin, a state that leans blue I may point out.

So, is the Bishop’s comparison with Hitler and Mussolini completely invalid? I think not, not when you keep in mind the means and use of power issue. As long as our state had a social progressive governor (Doyle) the social progressive unions got what they wanted with John Cue Taxpayer having little to no say in the matter. Whatever else you might call it, it certainly was a power block as long as the voters of Wisconsin chose to put  up with it by continuing to elect Democrats who, as we know, just love to raise taxes and take it to the bourgeoisie.

And what do you suppose the  socially progressive public school system would teach the young minds full of mush? Certainly not religion, the ACLU would not stand for it because as they say the public schools have to be neutral on matters of religion.

But are they neutral when it comes to politics and economic systems? I think not and it’s here the Catholic bishop makes his point. The system favors the power arrangement of totalitarianism since the system favors the power arrangements social progressives are so fond of. It follows that the children (and it’s all about the children according to the social progressives) will follow their teachers. This observation is made apparent by that fact that university students by a wide margin favor social progressive ideas. Have they been indoctrinated by a system that has totalitarian similarities? You make the call.

Related articles

• Joseph Stalin’s Rise to Corruption (issuesfortoday.wordpress.com)
• Cultural Marxism for Beginners (It Ain’t Too Hard) (truebluenz.com)

Had one of these

My wife and I had one of these that we bought in 1975. It’s a 1972 Mustang with a 350. Ours was very similar except that it had small American flag decals on the rear corner panels and a spoiler.

It’s probably the coolest car we ever had, purchased when we were in our early twenties and had not been married all that long.

What’s uncool about it is how stupid we were in making the purchase.

When we were first married I owned a 73 Ford Maverick with a 302. It was not the Grabber model, but it was close and I had spent some bucks making it look like a Grabber. It was my first car that I bought on my own and it was cool. (It’s also the first and only time I got a speeding ticket. But that was in Illinois and it was clear they were after Wisconsin drivers

But the Maverick wasn’t cool enough.

I’m not certain how it came about but we saw the 72 Mustang on the lot. I think it was because we brought the 73 Maverick in for service and took the opportunity to stroll the lot.

We both thought, wow, what a cool car, almost a Shelby muscle car!!!!

And that was that. We traded a low mileage 73 Maverick in for a high-mileage 72 Mustang just cause it was cooler and that of course made us cooler.

The Mustang then proceeded to break down on  a regular basis. Whatever could go wrong did? My wise father said, “I can’t believe you traded down a year for a high-mileage car. What the hec do you expect?” He was a sage. I was an idiot.

Then to make matters worse, my wife had two fender benders with it and I had one. Being in our early 20′s this had an adverse affect on our car insurance. Fast car, accidents, young couple, add up to high premiums.

Before long it dawned on us, although slowly, that perhaps our beloved, cool car, was not a good investment. The price tag on “coolness” was starting to hurt even though we both were working and didn’t have children yet.

Eventually, we had to bite the bullet and trade it in. We did, but this time for 1976 Skyhawk, which was sharp and useful since it was a hatchback.

The lesson we learned was “gee we were stupid.”

But that’s not all we learned. We didn’t get all of it then of course but it slowly dawned on us that the reason we traded for the Mustang in the first place had more to do with discontent than it did with coolness.

In other words we were not satisfied with what we had although it was a perfectly fine car. This says something about the heart and desire. The Scripture teaches there is something seriously wrong with the heart (Jer. 17:9; Matt. 15:19). Good desires easily  turn into happiness demands. The demand says I need __________ in order to be happy. In our case it was a cooler car and what that really meant is that we wanted affirmation from our friends, that we were in fact, cool and that in turn would make us happy.

The heart can be insatiable and demanding and our experience with the Mustang was an early example of that. Later we learned that only Jesus Christ can keep insatiable desires in check and turn dissatisfaction into contentment.

Centurion, First Legion

First Legion, 60mm Roman Centurion

To the left is a picture from the First Legion website of the latest addition to my miniatures collection. It was a Christmas gift my son and daughter-in-law.

My other Roman figures from the period represented are from King and Country and they are fine figures, but frankly this Centurion from First Legion has them beat in quality.

Centurion, King and Country

Having said that, it’s also honest to point out the price differential. The First Legion figure prices out at nearly twice the price that the King and Country one did.

In fact, the reason I had not purchased the First Legion figure and had to get it as a gift was due to the price.

I’m a relative novice when it comes to collecting military miniatures in the 54mm-60mm range but one thing is true; the higher the quality, the higher the cost. This means your budget will drive your favorite collections which is why I have a couple of dozen figures by King and Country and only one from First Legion.

But this brief piece is about more than stating the obvious. One of things I really liked when I received the First Legion Centurion was what it reminded me of. I had recently bought myself a Christmas present and that Christmas present was a subscription to Ancient Warfare Magazine.

To say that I enjoy the magazine is an understatement. It’s the perfect blend of scholarship, graphics and everything of interest that archaeology has uncovered or is uncovering. And that’s what struck me about the First Legion Centurion. He looks remarkably like the cover of Ancient Warfare’s special issue on the Battle of the Teutoberg Wald or as the magazine puts it The Varian Disaster.

Ancient Warfare Magazine

The magazine cover features a full-color rendition of a Centurion, surrounded by German tribesmen. Near the Centurion lies a dying Signifer his standard lying in the foreground.  It is this brave officer’s last fight.

Remarkable with the First Legion Centurion is the careful reproduction of the Centurions awards he wears on his chest. The medals can be seen on the cover of the magazine as well. A close-up of the figure will show embossed phalerae, medallions worn on a harness over the Centurion’s mailed shirt. Each medallion is for personal bravery in a previous engagement.

Casualty rates among Centurions (about 60 per legion) were high. This is because they were expected to lead from the front and had won their medallions from doing so.

Three legions were destroyed in the Varian Disaster and among the dead would be 179 more Centurions like the one on the cover.

First Legion’s figure is a tribute to a brave man and courageous leader.

But, as I was having lunch I was looking at my year-end issue of World Magazine. One of the features was a review of who died during 2011. I always find those interesting from a number of different angles but the angle I usually take is “I have heard of this person or I have not.”

Here’s a list of some of the departed folks I have heard of (and some I have not) along with some nostalgic comments off the top of my head.

James Arness, age 88

James Arness, Marshall Dillon, Gunsmoke. Synonymous. But the fact is I was not a big fan even though I loved cowboy stuff. Perhaps it’s because my parents didn’t watch Gunsmoke much. I do remember Bonanza so maybe we watched that as a family. Having said that I’ve seen the “High Noon” scene in Gunsmoke enough to have it firmly etched in my mind. Mr. Arness came from a time in TV history where the good guys were the good guys and the bad guys were the bad guys. These days it’s hard to tell the difference.

George Ballas, age 85

I confess I never heard of this guy but that might be common for inventors, unless you are as huge as Steve Jobs was. Mr. Ballas invented the Weed Whacker, one incredible labor-saving device replacing those stupid hand clippers I was saddled with as a kid. It was like taking down weeds with a glorified scissors and my dad knew it which is why I got the job. Well George changed all that in 1971 with his Weed Whacker. It was too late to save my childhood from the glorified scissors but in 1975 we got a home of our home and our first Weed Whacker. He got the idea from watching a car wash work. Why the hec didn’t my dad think of that?

Osama Bin Laden, age 54

Good riddance, yeah Navy Seals. Only thing President Obama has done right. Come to think of it though, it was Bush’s fault!

Image via Wikipedia

Albert Brown, age 105

I didn’t hear about this man until he passed. He was the oldest living survivor of the Bataan Death March in the Philippines, 1942, a six-day, 66 mile march hosted by the Japanese conquerors. Thousands of American and Filipino soldiers died in this brutal march. My dad was being trained for the invasion of Japan when the war ended.

Fred Buckles, age 110

Like Albert I had not heard of Fred until he passed. Fred was the last of five million Americans who served in WW1. Albert and Fred I suppose are noted because they were the last survivors of war or a campaign in a war. It helps us remember all those who passed before and especially those who died in the wars protecting us and our freedoms. Oh yeah, WW1 was the war to end all wars. How is that working out?

Jackie Cooper, age 88

Our Gang. For me it was reruns in the 60′s. He played “Jackie” as I just learned from World. All this time, I thought he was Spanky, or was Spanky the pudgy one? Then there was “Buckwheat” who I got to know again when Eddie Murphy did him on Saturday Night Live. As I think of Spanky and Our Gang I think back to summers as a child and the neighborhood I grew up in. Lots of kids, lots of pleasant memories of America, 1962 ish.

Ken Curtis, age 71

Never heard of him although I read the magazine he published. He founded Christian History Magazine and Gateway Films both evangelical enterprises. I liked the magazine but eventually dropped it although I don’t remember why. Probably because I had too much to read already. I’ll bet a still have the special issue on Calvin around here somewhere, and Edwards, maybe even Wesley. Hmmm, I’ll need to head to the attic to find out.

Al Davis. age 82

Combative, win-at-any-cost, super-tough-guy Football Hall of Fame owner, general manager, and former coach of the Oakland Raiders is how World described him. Yep, that’s how I remember him too. Never liked the Raiders which is fine, the Packers rarely play them and there are plenty of teams in the Packer’s division not to like, like the Vikings and Bears for instance. Detroit is okay, so far.

Peter Falk, age 83

Columbo. I didn’t watch it much, probably because I worked a lot of 2nd shift back then and didn’t get a VCR until the rest of the world had them. Nevertheless, it was hard to avoid Columbo and his signature line, “Oh, just one more question.” At that point you knew the bad guy was done for.

Geraldine Ferraro. age 75

It’s a shame that the first female candidate for VP was a feminist and abortion supporter. Still, I’m glad that women finally broke through that glass ceiling and paved the way for Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as well as many other women in politics. So there, I’m not a chauvinist.

Smokin Joe Frazier. age 67

I’ve never been a fight fan but do remember him clobbering Ali in 1971, my last year in High School. I thought yeah, about time someone decked that loud mouth. I kinda feel sorry for Ali now. It’s obvious that he took a lot of punches. I wonder if he thinks it was worth it?

Bruce Gordon, age 94

Frank Nitty. The Untouchables. Loved that show. My dad loved that show which is why I’m sure we watched it. Nitty and Ness.

Michael Gough, age 94

Never heard of this guy either until reading about him in World. He was the butler in the Batman films, named of course, Alfred. What does a butler do besides open the door for guests and say stuff like, so and so will see you now? Not bad work if you can get it.

Mark Hatfield, age 80

I remember him as a long-time Republican Senator, pro-life Baptist and active in the prayer movement in D.C.  He was also opposed to the Vietnam War.

Steve Jobs, age 56

My first pc was an Apple 2 E. Just got an iPad and love it. Mac’s are still too expensive but I covet one anyway especially because Microsoft annoys me with their constant upgrades to Windows. I think Jobs had a knack for getting it right the first time. Quality products, all I can say except the guy started the business in his basement or garage, I forget which. That is cool.

Bill Keane, age 89

I am not sure why but I still read the Family Circus on Sundays. Family Circus is the cartoon Bill started and now his son continues with. Great little cartoon on young family life so that’s why I read it. But Billy is still 8 and I’m 58 and that’s not fair!

Jack Kevorkian, age 83

Dr. Death. I think he even creeped out liberals and atheists.

Harmon Killebrew, age 74

As a child he was one of the few baseball cards that was not a Milwaukee Brave that we kids all wanted. Him and Mantle and a few others. If you got Killebrew in your pack of Topps you were all that and other kids would trade Braves for him. Yes! Great ball player.

Jack Lalanne, age 96

I read a lot of comics as a kid and his ad was the one where the bully was kicking sand in your wimpy face in front of your girlfriend. I didn’t have a girlfriend cause girls were still “yucky” then. Amazing guy though. Saw him on Fox shortly before he passed, hard not to like.

Harry Morgan, age unknown in World but had to be in his nineties.

Col. Potter in Mash, better than that other guy whose name escapes me. Harry was also side kick to Joe Friday in Dragnet and that’s where I got to know him.

David Nelson. age 74

Ozzie and Harriet second banana to heart-throb Rickie Nelson. All I know.

Muammar Qaddfi, age 69

Lockerbie. Good riddance. Enough said.

Andy Rooney, age 92

I liked this guy and his curmudgeon persona. In later years I took issue with his takes on some things but still liked him. It didn’t say in World but I think he was a reporter in WW2 and did a hec of a job.

Jane Russell, age 87

I watched a lot of war movies and in pretty many of them Jane or someone who looked a lot like her was the pin-up girl either on the wall of the Submarine or the nose of a B-17 or in a barracks she was the pin-up. Mild stuff by today’s standards.

I learned shortly before her death that she became a Christian after her pin-up days which no doubt ruined her career. She organized Bible study groups in Hollywood. I wonder who came to them? It would be interesting to know.

Duke Snider, age 84

Heavy hitter for “dem bums” known as the Brooklyn Dodgers. Duke was another hot baseball card that kids would trade Milwaukee Braves cards for. There were not many players who could claim that fanatical Braves fans would trade their priceless Braves cards for his.

John Stott, age 90

I read Stott shortly after receiving Christ as my Lord and Savior. The book was Basic Christianity. In later years he abandoned the doctrine of hell in favor of what is called annihilationism. I thought poorly of him then but then read his reasons. I don’t agree with him but at least he was honest and forthright for having them. I think he articulated what a lot of people hope is true because hell as the Bible teaches is a terrible place. This is why Jesus was all about repentance and people receiving him and trusting in him alone for their salvation. Basic Christianity is still a good read btw.

Elizabeth Taylor, age 79

Loved National Velvet as a kid and still like horse movies (Secretariat). I guess she did over 70 films. I kind of remember Cleopatra. Cultural icon. Still remember my mom saying stuff about Eddie Fisher or was he married to Marilyn Monroe?

Dick Winters, age 92

This guy was a real hero in a time when the term was not so darn over used. I became aware of Dick through Band of Brothers and through the book of the same name by Stephen E. Ambrose. From all accounts he was the kind of officer who led from the front and men were glad to follow.

Augustus

The above passage was written by Dr. Luke, author of Luke’s Gospel and The Book of Acts. Taken together and read in sequence the two books form a record of Jesus’ life and ministry through the birth of the early church and what happened in those very early days of Christianity.

Dr. Luke is noted for some of the historical details that he includes. In the above passage Dr. Luke establishes the time frame of Jesus’ birth. He notes that Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the world should be registered. This meant the Roman world that Caesar Augustus expanded and ruled. That world now included Judea. The reason for the registration was for tax purposes.

Dr. Luke also notes that this was “the first registration” thus implying there was more than one. He dates the first registration to Quirinius who was the governor of the Roman Province of Syria.

Historians debate the actual year this first registration took place and that’s because the Greek construction of the passage can be a bit confusing since the word “governor” does not always mean what governor means to us. It the Greek it can simply mean “ruler” both big and small and so can refer to some official with some power to just take a census or the actual governor of a province.

Whatever the case it seems apparent that Luke was seeking to establish a time-line that was easily proved or disproved by the people who were privy to his gospel record. In other words the original hearers of the gospel would have known the date and known all about Quirinius, the registration, the first of perhaps many and Caesar Augustus who lived until AD 14. Given the evidence most scholars conclude that Jesus was born around BC 5 or 6, rather than AD 1.

Historians as a whole are a suspicious lot. To prove the historicity of ancient events they are forced to consider literary sources and archaeological evidence. They tend to use the archaeology to back up the literary.

A historian seeking to establish whether there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem during the reign of Caesar Augustus and crucified during the reign of Tiberius would be dealing almost exclusively with literary sources since Jesus’ tomb with his body in it has never been found which makes perfect sense if you believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Therefore, historians are left with literary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus and date him to the reigns of Caesar Augustus and Caesar Tiberius.

Such evidence does exist and is found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian and favorite of the Flavian emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. It was Vespasian and Titus who prosecuted the Jewish War (AD 66-70) and it was Titus who destroyed Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple in AD 70 thus fulfilling what Jesus said in Matthew 24: 1-2.

That Jesus was an actual person is not debated by rational historians. The non-biblical literary evidence is substantial for a person who never was all that important to a historian who usually wrote about the great men of their times. Nevertheless, Jesus, the man is mentioned by Josephus on more than one occasion, he’s mentioned by Tacitus, Thallus (by the citation of others since his work is lost), Pliny the Younger, Lucian and the Jewish Talmud. That’s not bad given Jesus’ relative obscurity.

So not surprisingly the historicity of Jesus is not seriously debated.

What is debated of course is the divinity of Jesus. Was he God or wasn’t he was the debate in the first century and is the debate today.

Objections to Jesus’ divinity stem from an objection to the super-natural. Historians as a whole do not accept miracles (by definition an extraordinary super-natural event) and often seek to explain these events in other ways to make them fit into that which may be unusual but certainly not super-natural.

I find this a bit odd since most historians would accept the historicity of Jesus as a man born and crucified during the reign of two Caesars. They would realize just as any thinking person would that Luke’s facts above could have been easily proved or disproved by people who were still alive when the gospel was first written. In other words there were still plenty of eye witnesses around during the 1st Century AD that could have said, “heh, this guy never lived and it’s all made up.”

Yet somehow when it comes to miracles the eyewitness issue does not seem to matter.

For example John’s gospel gives an account of Jesus’ first miracle that if you follow the above timeline must have occurred roughly around AD 24.

The event is recorded in John 2:1-12 and the occasion was a wedding in Cana. I’m thinking this is a pretty big party since the wine ran out and Jesus’ mother asked him to do something about it. He does do something about it by turning six (presumably large) jars of water into wine. Given the details of the story the wine is not the cheap stuff either-a rather fascinating detail that John thought well worth remembering.

(As a point aside archaeologists have found the site of Cana thus showing John was not making up that detail either.)

Since this was a large party and the servants at the wedding must have been pretty wowed by the event does it not follow there were plenty of eye witnesses to the event who could easily confirm or deny what happened?

If you are familiar with the gospel accounts then you will know something else about the miracles that Jesus performed. What you will know is that while many actually witnessed these events few actually believed.

In John’s account of the wedding feast John states that his disciples believed after seeing the water turn into wine (John. 2:11). John does not mention that anyone else did  and that strikes me as odd since you’d think if many believed you’d want to make a deal out of it. Yet, John simply says Jesus’ disciples believed.

If you took the time to examine Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture you’d see this pattern repeated more or less throughout. Many witness the event, but few actually believe.

And this is what makes it hard to explain to people who do not believe.

Belief is a super-natural event although it does involve the intellect and evidence.

I can look to historical details to proof there was a historical figure named Jesus who was born and died during the reign of two Caesars but I cannot prove he was God through rational means and that’s because believe has to be spiritually discerned.

Here’s another passage that seems to make my point:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20 ESV)

The first thing to note is that Philippi is named Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus who the Romans defied as a god. The cult of emperor worship is a subject for another time but I think the passage is ironic in implication. There is, at least in my opinion an implied contrast that compares the deified Augustus to a Jewish Rabbi claiming to be the Messiah.

The first thing is not the most important thing about the passage.

Note that Jesus is asking his disciples who the people saw that he is. The disciples seem like they are up on public opinion and reply that the people (at least the ones still following him around and witnessing miracles) think he is one of the prophets.

Here you have eye witnesses to Jesus’ miracles understanding that he is a bit more than a average guy but still not making the connection that he is God. Instead, it’s easier to believe he is the reincarnation of one of the prophets. At least in their minds they were considering the possibility of something super-natural since reincarnated prophets is at the least unusual.

But Jesus cuts to the chase and asks the disciples who the disciples think that he is. These are the same disciples who believed way back when at the wedding feast of Cana so Peter pipes up and says Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.

Jesus’ reply is stunning and explains why the numerous witnesses to his miracles still come to the wrong conclusions about him.

Jesus says quite plainly that his divinity was revealed to them by his Father and that flesh and blood will never “get it” on it’s own.

In other words Jesus is telling the disciples there is a limit to apologetics which means defense of the faith. All the factoids and all the implications from eyewitness data will never get someone to believe that Jesus is God. At the end of the day, that fact has to be revealed by the Father. If it’s not then conclusions about Jesus and the gospel record will result in some other explanation.

Christmas itself is a miraculous event. The Son of God condescends to come to earth (John. 1:1-14) to be born, live and die during the reign of two Caesars that everyone believes existed. Jesus himself provides ample evidence that he was who he said he was but many doubt and reach other conclusions.

If you find yourself among the doubters consider what Jesus has said about ultimate truth being revealed to you super-naturally. Consider:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:35-40 ESV)

It’s a passage filled with promise and explains why Jesus came, the event we celebrate at Christmas.

Related articles

• A Christmas Tale Of Two Kings (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)
• Jesus & Augustus, Christ & Caesar (I) (frted.wordpress.com)
• Jesus & Augustus, Christ & Caesar (II) (frted.wordpress.com)