Mythologizing the Bible

Cyrus was chosen by Yahweh… and Marduk. What happens when political power convinces us that our god, destiny, or history has chosen its leader?

Imagine conquering an empire and then discovering that the people you’ve conquered believe their own god wanted you to win. That’s essentially what happened with Cyrus the Great. The Cyrus Cylinder portrays the Babylonian god Marduk as choosing Cyrus to rescue Babylon from an unworthy king. Meanwhile, Isaiah portrays Yahweh as choosing that very same Cyrus, even calling this foreign, non-Jewish ruler his anointed. Two gods. Two religious traditions. One remarkably well-endorsed emperor.

But maybe the most interesting question isn’t which god really chose Cyrus. Maybe we should ask why human beings are so eager to believe that our leaders have been chosen at all. Because once political authority becomes part of a sacred story, accountability gets complicated. And while most of us aren’t waiting for Marduk to endorse our next president, we still tend to create messiahs, chosen leaders, indispensable billionaires, inevitable movements, and people we’re convinced are somehow destined to save us all. The mythology changes. The temptation doesn’t.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Integrity isn’t about the values we claim. It’s whether our actions match them even when loyalty, convenience, or competing obligations get in the way.

Have you ever caught yourself criticizing someone for something you’d probably excuse if a person on your own side did it? This week, we’re exploring integrity and why it has less to do with the values we claim and more to do with whether those values actually survive our choices.

As we reflect on the readings for the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore why integrity asks us to judge actions by our values rather than our tribes, make those values visible through what we do, and recognize what we owe others without surrendering the principles that define us.

In this episode, we’re asking a deceptively simple question: Does what I’m doing right now reflect who I say I am? Together, we’ll uncover some profound wisdom underneath these ancient texts and explore why integrity isn’t about ideological purity or perfect consistency. It’s about doing the ongoing work of bringing what we believe, what we say, and what we do into alignment.

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Why do we soften the troubling Jesus found in the Bible? Maybe our selective editing reveals something important about how human morality has evolved.

I spent decades around Christianity, and I know a lot of thoughtful, compassionate Christians (including clergy who have studied scripture far more deeply than I have). They know the troubling passages are there. But when we talk about who Jesus really was, we tend to emphasize the Good Samaritan, the Beatitudes, forgiveness, compassion, and love of neighbor. When Jesus starts talking about swords, hating your family, burning cities, or throwing people into outer darkness, suddenly we need context, metaphor, translation, theology, and sometimes a pretty impressive amount of interpretive gymnastics. And that raises an uncomfortable question: If these words belong to the Jesus Christians want us to follow, why do we so often need to soften them before we’re comfortable hearing them?

It would be easy for me, as an atheist and humanist, to stop there; to point at Christians and accuse them of editing Jesus into someone who better reflects their modern values. But that’s NOT where I’m gonna stop… because I think the far more interesting question isn’t whether we reinterpret the past. I think the far more interesting question is why we reinterpret the past. What moral framework are we using? And are we even willing to admit that we’re doing it?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Tenacity isn’t stubbornness. It’s knowing when to endure, when to adapt, and when changing your strategy is the best way to keep moving forward.

Have you ever kept doing something that clearly wasn’t working simply because you didn’t want to give up? This week, we’re exploring tenacity and why sticking with a challenge doesn’t always mean sticking with the same strategy.

I’m Brandon Jubar and this is Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

As we reflect on the readings for the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how tenacity grows stronger when we endure together, helps us adapt without losing ourselves, and sometimes requires us to change the plan without abandoning the purpose.

In this episode, we’re asking an interesting question: Is there something in your life that isn’t working out the way you hoped… and are you willing to try another way? Together, we’ll explore why tenacity isn’t stubbornly following one path, but continuing toward something worth pursuing even when the path needs to change.

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Courage means holding our own institutions accountable, resisting manufactured outrage, and defending our values when doing so comes at a cost.

I’ve noticed something about courage: we tend to admire it most when someone else is paying the price. We celebrate the whistleblower who exposes corruption, the protester who challenges injustice, and the person who stands up to an abusive institution. But when the criticism turns toward a church we belong to, a political movement we support, or a leader we’ve defended for years, our enthusiasm for accountability can suddenly become a lot more complicated. Apparently, courage is a wonderful virtue right up until it threatens our own comfortable little corner of the world.

We were given several important images in the Bible readings we covered in the main episode this week. Isaiah’s rotten vineyard, Paul’s advice about where we direct our attention, and Matthew’s corrupt tenants all raise a question that reaches well beyond religion: What are our values worth when practicing them carries a cost? Because courage isn’t about being fearless, and it certainly isn’t about being the loudest person in the room. It’s about what we do when fear, loyalty, and self-interest give us perfectly convenient reasons to look the other way.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Courage isn’t being fearless. It’s facing uncomfortable truths, resisting fear, and standing by your values when doing so comes at a cost.

Have you ever noticed how much easier it is to stand up for your values when everyone around you agrees with them? This week, we’re exploring courage, not as the absence of fear, but as the willingness to face uncomfortable truths and do what’s right, even when it might cost us something.

As we reflect on the readings for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how courage helps us confront our own shortcomings, make thoughtful choices when we’re afraid, and stand against injustice.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: What happens to our convictions when we leave the comfort of people who already agree with us? Together, we’ll explore why courage matters most when living our values becomes uncomfortable.

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Adaptability can be a virtue. But what happens when politicians change, not because the evidence changed, but because standing firm has become too costly?

Our main episode this week celebrated adaptability. I told you that changing your mind can be a sign of growth, that changing course when something isn’t working can be wise, and that stubbornly clinging to an old position simply because you’ve already committed to it isn’t necessarily integrity. And I stand by all of that.

But watching the Republican Party’s relationship with Donald Trump raises a much more uncomfortable version of the same question. What happens when the evidence doesn’t really change, but the political incentives do? What happens when standing by your principles and opposing someone can cost you influence, leadership, or even your political career, while accommodating that person, regardless of your principles, allows you to remain inside the circle of power? At what point does adaptability stop being intellectual flexibility and become something else entirely?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Adaptability isn’t weakness. Growth means knowing when to change course, loosen our grip, and change our minds when circumstances demand it.

Have you ever noticed how often we praise people for refusing to change their minds? We call it strength, conviction, or standing their ground. But sometimes the strongest thing we can do is recognize that something isn’t working and then change .

As we reflect on the readings for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how adaptability allows us to change direction when our behavior isn’t working, loosen our grip on always having things our own way, and change our minds when reflection gives us good reason to do so.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: When does standing our ground stop being strength and start becoming stubbornness? Together, we’ll uncover some useful wisdom underneath these ancient texts and explore why adaptability isn’t about surrendering our values… it’s about becoming willing to grow!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Bible evolved through centuries of adaptation and reinterpretation. So how did a changing tradition become an argument against changing our minds?

There’s a wonderfully convenient escape hatch available whenever a religious belief stops making sense: God’s ways aren’t our ways. Ask why an all-powerful God permits something horrible, question an ancient moral rule, or point out a theological contradiction, and Isaiah 55 can suddenly appear like a divine Get Out of Logic Free card. We’re human. God knows better. Stop asking questions.

But there’s a delicious irony hiding behind that argument. The Bible itself wasn’t created by people who simply preserved an unchanging collection of ideas exactly as they received them. Its writers and editors lived through wars, exile, political upheaval, and cultural change—and they repeatedly interpreted, adapted, expanded, and reworked their traditions in response. So how did texts created through a remarkably dynamic human process eventually become arguments against changing our own thinking?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Innovation begins when we question what we've learned to accept, solve problems that matter, and imagine better ways of doing things.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why we do something a certain way and realized the only real answer is, “Because that’s how we’ve always done it”? This week, we’re exploring innovation and what happens when we become willing to question the assumptions, solutions, and systems we’ve learned to accept.

As we reflect on the readings for the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how innovation begins by questioning the limits of our current thinking, focuses our creativity on problems that actually matter, and sometimes requires us to redesign the rules themselves.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: What happens when we stop assuming that the way things are is the way they have to be? Together, we’ll uncover some surprising wisdom underneath these ancient texts and consider how curiosity and intellectual humility can open the door to something far better.

CODA Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.