Today’s holidays: Ḥanukkah (Judaism), Christmas (Christianity), Feast of Robert “Bob” Leroy Ripley/Festival of Fish-Fighting, Fisting and Felching (Church of the SubGenius), Feast of the Greater Mysteries (Thelema).
Greetings.
I have gotten very bad about posting regularly. I still have not finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which at 1,080 pages, much of it lengthy monologues and lectures, takes quite a while to get through, though I am getting close to the end. Due to the philosophical nature of the work—reportedly it is not a mere work of fiction, but something of a lengthy morality play—I may go on to read her (much shorter) The Virtue of Selfishness as well to get a more solid idea of what her philosophy really is before writing a review. So please bear with me on this. Like it or not, a number of Republican politicians—who seem intent on having a big effect on the United States and by extension the rest of the planet—are reportedly Ayn Rand fans, and as Rand’s philosophy falls into the category of “religious fallacies and misinformation”, this is something I have to tackle. (I am thinking about going back and reading about LaVeyan Satanism, which reportedly is derived from Ayn Rand’s moral code, afterwards. This should take less time to produce a review, as I have an unpublished review of some of the books already written and Anton Szandor LaVey is a much more fun writer once one realizes how much he is writing really is projecting an image.)
The group protesting for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and against the Waqf’s destruction of everything Jewish up there (myself included, I hope) will be at the Shuq in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) today (28 July 2011), probably around 7:00 PM, in an educational capacity. NOTE: I am still waiting to get final details on this.
One of the people at the last protest (this past Thursday) was handing out pamphlets promoting Jews visiting the Temple Mounton Ro’sh Ḥodhesh ’Av (1 August 2011). Visiting hours for Jews are 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM and 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. One should visit a miqweh, wear non-leather shoes, and bring a one’s identity card. See “The Temple Mount: Bird's Eye Guide to the Temple Mount” and “Ascending the Temple Mount: An Introduction and Brief Guide” and consult a competent Orthodox rav for more information. Remember: The more Jews who show up, the more the police and the politicians know that the Temple Mount matters to Jews and will be less likely to pander to Muslim discrimination.
Our Masters taught: When Rabbi ’El‘azar was arrested for sectarianism, they brought him up to the scaffold for judgement.
That governor said to him, “An old [man] like you should keep busy in these empty matters?”
[Rabbi ’El‘azar] said to him, “Trustworthy on me is the judge.”
As that governor thinks on him he says, “And he does not speak but concerning his Father that is in Heaven.”
[The governor] said to him, “Since I believed you, [by] Dimos [= Deimos, a Greek god whose name means “dread”], you are exempt.”
When [Rabbi ’El‘azar] came to his house, his students entered near him to comfort him, and he did not accept upon himself their condolences.
Rabbi ‘Aqiva’ said to him, “Rabbi, will you permit me to say one thing from what you taught me?”
[Rabbi ’El‘azar] said to him, “Say [it].”
[Rabbi ‘Aqiva’] said to him, “Rabbi, perhaps sectarianism came to your hand and it pleased you, and because of it you were arrested?”
[Rabbi ’El‘azar] said to him, “‘Aqiva’, you reminded me [that] one time I was walking around in the upper market of Ṣippori [Sepphoris, a city in the Galilee], and I found one human from the students of Yeshu the Noṣri, and Ya‘aqov, man of Kefar Sekhanya’, [was] his name.
“He said to me, ‘It is written in your Torah, ‘You will not bring a prostitute’s fee (etc.) [or the price of a dog [to] the house of YHWH your god for any vow, for an abomination [to] YHWH your god are also these two]’ (Deuteronomy 23:19). What about to make from it a toilet for the Chief Priest?’
“And I said to him nothing.
“He said to me, ‘Thus taught me Yeshu the Noṣri: ‘For from a prostitute’s fee she gathered, and until a prostitute’s they will return’ (Micah 1:7)—from the place of filth they came; to the place of filth they will go.’
“And the thing pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for sectarianism, and I transgressed that which is written in the Torah: ‘Keep far from her your way’—this is sectarianism—‘and do not approach the entrance of her house’ (Proverbs 5:8)—this is the [Roman] government.”
And there are those that say: “Keep far from her your way”—this is sectarianism and the [Roman] government—“and do not approach the entrance of her house”—this is prostitution.
[NOTE: Qoheleth Rabbah is not part of either Talmudh, but rather is a collection of midhrash (exegesis and legends passed down about the Hebrew Bible and which have grown up around it). This passage is included here, because it is clearly a version of the previous passage.]
Another thing: “All words are weary” (Ecclesiastes 1:8)—words of sectarianism weary humanity.
A deed of Rabbi ’El‘azar, who was arrested for sectarianism: They took him [to] the governor and brought him up on the platform to judge him.
[The governor] said to him, “A great human like you should busy himself in these empty matters?”
[Rabbi ’El‘azar] said to him, “Trustworthy on me is the judge.”
And he [the governor] thought that he spoke about him, but he did not speak but concerning Heaven.
[The governor] said to him, “Since you believed me about you, even I am thinking and say: it is possible that these academies err in these empty matters. [By] Dimos, you are exempt.”
After Rabbi ’El‘azar was dismissed from the platform, he was distressed that he was he was arrested on matters of sectarianism. His students entered near him to comfort him, and he did not accept [their condolences].
Rabbi ‘Aqiva’ entered near him. He said to him, “Perhaps one of the sectarians spoke in front of you something, and it was pleasing before you.”
[Rabbi ’El‘azar] said to him, “Behold, the heavens! You have reminded me: one time I was going up into the court in Ṣippori, and came to me one human from the students of Yeshu the Noṣri, and Ya‘aqov, man of Kefar Sekhanya’, [was] his name.
“And he said to me one thing, and it pleased me, and this thing was: ‘It is written in your Torah, ‘You will not bring a prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog [to the house of YHWH your god for any vow, for an abomination to YHWH your god are also these two]’ (Deuteronomy 23:19). What are they?’
“I said to him, ‘Prohibited.’
“He said to him [should be: to me], ‘For a sacrifice, [they are] prohibited; for ruin, it is permitted.’
“I said to him, ‘And if so, what will one do with them?’
“He said to me, ‘Let one make with them bathhouses and toilets.’
“I said to him, ‘Beautifully have you spoken.’
“And hidden from me was the halakhah [how one rules in Jewish law] for a moment.
“Since he saw that I acknowledged his words, he said to me, ‘From excrement they came, and to excrement they will go out, as it is said, ‘For from a prostitute’s fee she gathered, and until a prostitute’s they will return’ (Micah 1:7). Let them make thrones [probably a euphemism for toilets] for the masses.’
“And it pleased me.
“And because of this I was arrested for sectarianism. Moreover I transgressed that which is written in the Torah: ‘Keep far from her your way, and do not approach the entrance of her house” (Proverbs 5:8). ‘Keep far from her your way’—this is sectarianism—‘and do not approach the entrance of her house’—this is prostitution.
“Why? ‘For many slain has she caused to fall, and tremendous are all those killed by her’ (Proverbs 7:26).”
How much [should one remove oneself]? Rav Ḥisda’ said, “Until four cubits.”
From here died Rabbi ’El‘azar ben Dama’, son of the sister of Rabbi Yishma‘e’l, whom a snake bit. And Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ came to heal him, and Rabbi Yishma‘e’l did not let him.
[Rabbi Yishma‘e’l] said, “You are not allowed, Ben Dama’”.
[Rabbi ’El‘azar ben Dama’] said to him, “Allow me, and I will bring you proof from the Torah that it is permitted.” But he did not bring him enough proof before he died.
And Rabbi Yishma‘e’l rejoiced and said, “Happy are you, Ben Dama’, that your soul went out in purity and you did not breach the fence of the Sages [to submit to the ministrations of one such as Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’]. For all who breach the fence of the Sages [his] end is that calamities come upon him, as it is written, ‘And one who breaches a fence, a snake will bite him’ (Ecclesiastes 1:8).”
And he was not bitten except that a snake should not bite him in the future to come [in the afterlife as a punishment].
And what was to him [Rabbi ’El‘azar ben Dama’] in it [that he should submit to the ministrations of Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’]? “That the human will do them and live by them” (Leviticus 11:5)—and not that he should die by them.
I find the timing of these passages rather difficult. The king of Yehudhah (Judea) at the time of Yeshu the Noṣri was Yanna’y (Alexander Jannaeus), who died in 76 BCE. Rabbi ‘Aqiva’, however, lived at the time of the Bar Kokhba’ revolt in 132 CE. Rabbi ‘Aqiva’ is said to have lived 120 years, but even if we place this incident at the beginning of his teaching career, 40 years before he was executed by the Romans, that still leaves us with a gap of about 168 years between Yeshu the Noṣri in Egypt and this incident with Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’. Perhaps Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ was not being literal about having been taught by Yeshu the Noṣri, but rather is claiming to have received traditions which go back to him. Alternatively, there could have been multiple people named “Yeshu the Noṣri”.
There is also the question of what Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ would have done in treating Rabbi ’El‘azar ben Dama’ that would have been in violation of Jewish law. Medical treatment is not prohibited, so it had to be known or at least suspected that Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ was doing something forbidden. Since Yeshu the Noṣri is depicted as a magician, Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ may have followed in his footsteps and used magic for healing. This may be related to many incidents in the Gospels where Jesus is depicted as faith-healing. (What one person views as a legitimate religious practice may be easily viewed by others as magic. The term “magic” comes from magus, the Latin term for a Zoroastrian priest.) Considering that Yeshu the Noṣri committed idolatry, the magic of Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’ may have also contained an idolatrous component. If so, Rabbi Yishma‘e’l was completely right in prohibiting it even to save a life; one is obligated to die rather than commit idolatry.
The group protesting for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and against the Waqf’s destruction of everything Jewish up there (myself included) will be at the Shuq in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) this Thursday (28 July 2011), probably around 7:00 PM, in an educational capacity.
One of the people at the last protest (this past Thursday) was handing out pamphlets promoting Jews visiting the Temple Mount on Ro’sh Ḥodhesh ’Av (1 August 2011). Visiting hours for Jews are 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM and 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. One should visit a miqweh, wear non-leather shoes, and bring a one’s identity card. See “The Temple Mount: Bird's Eye Guide to the Temple Mount” and “Ascending the Temple Mount: An Introduction and Brief Guide” and consult a competent Orthodox rav for more information. Remember: The more Jews who show up, the more the police and the politicians know that the Temple Mount matters to Jews and will be less likely to pander to Muslim discrimination.
[Mishnah:] One who writes on his flesh [on Shabbath] is liable [to bring a sin offering if unintentionally and to death if deliberately]. And one who scratches [letters] on his flesh [on Shabbath], Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer declares him liable to bring a sin offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua‘ exempts [him].
[Expositing on the Mishnah:] The one who draws like the form of writing on the skin [on Shabbath] is exempt.
Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer said to them, “And did not Ben Seṭadha’ bring out sorcery from Miṣrayim [Egypt] just this way?
They said to him, “Because of one incompetent, do we lose many smart [people]?”
Talmudh Bavil, Shabbath 104b:
[Expositing on the Mishnah:] “One who scratches [letters] on his flesh [on Shabbath—Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer declares him guilty to bring a sin offering, and the Sages exempt [him].]”: It was taught: Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer said to the Sages, “And did not Ben Seṭadha’ bring out sorcery from Miṣrayim in a scratch that [was] on his flesh [i.e., scratched into his flesh]?”
They said to him, “He was an incompetent, and one does not bring a proof [of how people normally behave] from incompetents.”
The term which I translate as “incompetent” in both passages, shoṭeh, is frequently grouped together with ḥeresh (“deaf-mute”) and qaṭan (“minor”, someone under age 13 if male and 12 if female) as part of the canonical group of people who are not legally responsible for their actions; someone has to have severe mental problems to be considered a shoṭeh. The term also is part of the compound term ḥasidh shoṭeh (“incompetent pietist”), which refers to someone whose priorities are severely wrong, such as a man who declines to save a woman drowning in a river because if he does so, he will have to see her naked. It is no stretch to interpret this passage as meaning that the Sages thought Ben Seṭadha’ was some sort of idiot or lunatic.
Do note that Ben Seṭadha’, like Yeshu the Noṣri and the Jesus of the Gospels spent time in Egypt. And like Yeshu the Noṣri, Ben Seṭadha’ was a magician. Also note that while the passages about Yeshu the Noṣri do not approve of his behavior, none of them suggest that he was mentally defective. Keep in mind: doing wrong is not the same thing as being stupid.
Talmudh Bavil, Sanhedhrin 67a:
[[In a discussion of the trial of inciters:]]
And if he said, “Thus are our obligations and thus is beautiful for us [to worship idols]”, the witnesses that hear from outside bring him to court and stone him. And thus they did to Ben Seṭadha’ in Ludh [Lod, a city near Tel ’Aviv and site of the Ben Guryon Airport], and they hung him on the eve of Pesaḥ [Passover].
Ben [= son of] Seṭadha’? He [was the] son of Pandera’!
Rav Ḥisda’ said, “The husband [was] Seṭadha’. The one who had intercourse [with his mother was] Pandera’.”
The husband [was] Pappos ben Yehudhah!
[Yes, ] but his mother was Seṭadha’.
His mother was Miryam the braider of women[’s hair = Miryam meghadela’ neshaya’]!
As they said in Pumbedhitha’ [a center of Jewish learning in Babylonia]: This one turned [seṭath da’] from her husband.
Like Yeshu the Noṣri and the Jesus of the Gospel According to John, Ben Seṭadha’ is executed on the eve of Pesaḥ. Like Yeshu the Noṣri, Ben Seṭadha’ is stoned and hung by Jews, not crucified by Romans. That this specifically happens in Ludh is unlike the Gospels, in which Jesus is executed in Yerushalayim.
Note there is some confusion over who were Ben Seṭadha’’s parents, with the resolution being that his father was Pandera’, his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehudhah, and his mother was Miryam [= Mary]. Only the last agrees to any degree with the Gospels and the Aramaic suggests an identification of Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary Magdalene. (Digest that, Dan Brown and Lady Gaga!) Miryam was an adulteress, which fits well with the Gospel claim that Jesus was literally the Son of God and with the Christian tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or adulteress. (And, yes, I am aware the Gospels are silent on Mary Magdalene’s sex life and I have heard that such an identification may be late, but the parallel is still there.)
Though there was a bit of similarity of Ben Seṭadha’ to Yeshu the Noṣri and Jesus of the Gospels, there is not a lot to go on in the first place. That a scholar such as Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah could have at one point voluntarily associated with Yeshu the Noṣri suggests Yeshu was probably at least somewhat intelligent. This is confirmed by Yeshu being able to disgrace his learning—he had to be able to acquire the learning in order to be able to disgrace it. Ben Seṭadha’ seems to have not been mentally all there, suggesting that he was a different person.
The group protesting for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and against the Waqf’s destruction of everything Jewish up there (myself included) will be at the Shuq in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) this Thursday (28 July 2011), probably around 7:00 PM, in an educational capacity.
One of the people at the last protest (this past Thursday) was handing out pamphlets promoting Jews visiting the Temple Mount on Ro’sh Ḥodhesh ’Av (1 August 2011). Visiting hours for Jews are 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM and 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. One should visit a miqweh, wear non-leather shoes, and bring a one’s identity card. See “The Temple Mount: Bird's Eye Guide to the Temple Mount” and “Ascending the Temple Mount: An Introduction and Brief Guide” and consult a competent Orthodox rav for more information. Remember: The more Jews who show up, the more the police and the politicians know that the Temple Mount matters to Jews and will be less likely to pander to Muslim discrimination.
Greetings.
Image of Jesus making himself look like an ignoramus in front of Pharisees via Wikipedia
[In a discussion of the eulogies of great scholars which ends up as exegesis of Psalms 144:14, giving examples of bad students:] “In our streets”—that we should not have a son or student that spoils his dish [i.e., disgraces his learning] in public, e.g., Yeshu the Noṣri.
This passage indicates that the Pharisees thought about as highly of Yeshu’s learning as he did of theirs.
’Unqelos bar Qaloniqos [author of the canonical translation of the Torah into Aramaic] was the son of the sister of Ṭiṭus [Titus, emperor of Rome]; he wanted to convert.
[[’Unqelos raises up Titus and Bil‘am and questions them about who is important in the World to Come.]]
[’Unqelos] went [and] raised up with necromancy Yeshu the Noṣri. He said to him, “Who is important in that world?”
[’Unqelos asked,] “What about to be joined to them?”
[Yeshu] said to him, “Inquire about their grace; do not inquire about their tragedy. Whoever touches them, it is as if he touches the pupil [better: cornea] of his eye.”
[’Unqelos] said to him, “The judgement of ‘that man’ [i.e., Yeshu] is in what?”
[Yeshu] said to him, “In boiling excrement.”
Your humble blogger finds it difficult to see this as an actual historical event. At best, it could reflect some meditative or drug-induced experience. What is obvious what whoever wrote it thought about Yeshu the Noṣri.
Both of these passages demonstrate a very negative view of Yeshu the Noṣri, which is in complete agreement with the passages I have already written about. They also reflect the negative attitudes of the Pharisees towards Jesus depicted in the New Testament, the big difference being that here Jesus is the bad guy. Note that while Jesus in the Gospels gets the upper hand in arguments (probably through omission of the Pharisees’ rebuttals of anything Jesus has to say, if these arguments ever took place at all), here he is not even given the opportunity to make a case.
Thus ends what I have managed to find on Yeshu the Noṣri in the Talmudh. Up next are passages on Ben Seṭadha’, which resemble the stories of Jesus and Yeshu and may—or may not—be the same person.
Today’s holidays: Fifteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Mel Blanc (Church of the SubGenius).
Greetings.
Yes, I am reviewing The Gospel According to St. Matthew, yet another Gospel-based film, one specifically based on Matthew and currently watchable on Hulu. Happily (or unhappily, depending on your point of view), there is not much to say. Other than ṣara‘ath (often mistranslated as “leprosy”) being confounded with a facial deformity, it follows Matthew closely, warts and all, especially the warts. While authenticity is good, absolutely nothing is done to fill in the gaps in the original text and make it more understandable. You will find nothing to explain why anyone did anything which is not in the Gospels. Everything I complained about the Gospels being anti-Semitic is there, without the least sign of reflection on the part of those who made this film on what Jesus’s opponents actually believed or why they were opposed to him; Jesus is depicted as obviously right without question. Pilate and the rest of the Romans get off easy here, too. Only two things are particularly unusual:
1) The visual style is bad, even taking into consideration that this movie was made back in the 1960s, when video was often still in black-and-white and special effects were crude. The scenery is dull. The clothing is dull. The headgear looks especially stupid, and none of it looks like anything your humble blogger has seen in any depiction of Second Temple Period Israel. Anyone who has opened up Ezekiel knows that angels do not look like young women, but no one who made this movie seems to have considered having the angel at least dress differently from everyone else.
2) To the credit of the lead actor, Jesus is unusually lively for a Gospel film. Jesus in the Gospels is frequently angry, and in this movie, it actually shows. It is a controlled anger, a disgust for everything he complains about, which underlies all his speeches. Jesus also comes off as a bit crazy.
Recommendation: If you need to review Matthew and have a strong stomach, this is a good film to watch. Otherwise just skip it; you will not miss anything.
Unfortunately, Malcolm NC-17 sent me a link to Lady Gaga’s “Judas” with a request to review it. At 2:30 AM, unable to sleep, I had this dreadful song stuck in my head with a sizable amount of my neural circuitry analyzing it, and the only thing I could really do with it was write about it. (This is not the only time this has happened. I have an unpublished sermon I wrote after catching part of Coyote Ugly and finding myself awake for hours afterwards dissecting it. I am so glad that I do not have work today, because otherwise I would be in really big trouble.) I hope Malcolm NC-17 comes to regret this.
The video, for the suicidally curious with strong stomachs, can be found here. I strongly recommend this video be watched only on an empty stomach, and those not used to watching such material should not watch it at all. Really. I mean it. Absolutely not kidding. This could give people nightmares. Do not say I did not warn you.
The first thing which comes to mind on watching this video is Proverbs 11:22: “A gold ring in the nose of a pig is a beautiful woman deviating from taste.” While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Lady Gaga periodically is criticized for her choice of costumes and makeup such that even people who do not follow popular music (such as myself) hear about it. This video is no exception, and she rather resembles a gold truck tire in the nose of a hippopotamus, if for nothing other than her atrocious eye makeup.
The word ṭa‘am, which I translate as “taste”, can also be translated as “meaning”, which also fits. What is happening in the video is unclear, as it is plagued by abrupt changes in costume and setting. It does make use of recognized Christian religious symbols (to be detailed below), but not consistently using them with anything resembling conventional Christianity; this does not help clarifying the plot. Even after checking the description on Wikipedia and way too many viewings, the video still comes off somewhat incoherent. Part of it is that the music is too loud to understand all of the lyrics. (E.g., is Lady Gaga claiming to be a “holy fool” or a “horny fool”?) But even the lyrics read alone prove poorly written and partly nonsensical. (Suddenly Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell seem wonderful.)
I discussed the video with Malcolm, and he claimed the confusion is deliberate:
Look at her carefully. She’s short, small-breasted, has a big nose, and her face is shaped a little funny. She’s not abnormal or even terribly unattractive but she’s no supermodel. For marketing purposes, it’s not atypical to glamour-up performers. Lady Gaga does this and then goes overboard on top of this. Like Madonna before kept changing costumes and personas, Lady Gaga attracts constant interest by wearing outrageous outfits. The outfits and other stunts are shocking and create curiosity, but they are ultimately meaningless. The same can be said about the videos, the tenth of which you have not seen. In this context, “Judas” is just a variation on this previous attention-getting behavior. Both the song and video are a bunch of inane blasphemies. They shock and get a lot of attention (I hear the pope objected to it), but ultimately it’s meaningless. All it does it get her attention, create interest, and get people to want to hear the next song and see the next video. That’s it.
This does make sense in an egotistical sort of way. However I did note that the video also rather resembles a nightmare, being full of nonsense and discontinuity—not to mention it has a dark tone. Malcolm admitted, “Her other videos have a nightmarish or surreal quality to them”, which I will take as a sign that interpreting “Judas” as a bad dream is not overthinking it (or at least not overthinking it too much).
The plot (if it can be called that) of the video seems to be the strangest variation on the Gospel story of which your humble blogger is aware. Jesus (wearing his crown of thorns, anachronistically well before the Crucifixion) and the Apostles are recast as a motorcycle gang(!), and Lady Gaga plays Mary Magdalene (at least according to Wikipedia), who is caught in a love triangle between Jesus (“my virtue”) and Judas (“the demon I cling to”). The lyrics seem to be Mary Magdalene addressing Jesus on how she is in love with Judas. Such a complex relationship is not attested in the Gospels, despite anything The Da Vinci Code claims. The idea of a Mary Magdalene-Judas relationship may have been inspired by Color of the Cross, in which Mary Magdalene sleeps with Judas in order to distract him. Taken from the Gospels in plot points are a woman (here Mary/Gaga) washing Jesus’s feet with her hair—here in a tub with not just Jesus but Judas as well, both fully dressed!—and Judas kissing Jesus. The Gospels depict Jesus and Judas confronting each other, but in this video Mary/Gaga is caught in the middle of the confrontation. The best your humble blogger can interpret her actions and lyrics, she has probably been ordered by Jesus to shoot Judas—and she may even want to do it to some degree—but she cannot bring herself to do anything more than mark his face with lipstick. The lipstick, incoherently, is extruded from the gun. For her failure, Mary/Gaga is stoned to death. I am unaware of anything like this in the New Testament.
If “Judas” is meant to actually mean anything, it is a dismal failure, being a huge piece of nonsense and obviously untenable interpretation of the Gospels. If, like the writings of H. P. Lovecraft, it is meant as a nightmare, it may actually work. If it is meant to manipulate others into giving her attention, do not bother. Anyone who makes videos like this arguably is mentally ill and is in need of attention from psychologists, not music-lovers. I, for one, do not intend to watch anything by Lady Gaga ever again, I was so offended.
I have been busy getting ready to move to Israel, but this episode has been weighing on my mind. (And it is a miracle I watched it as all. The episode before it, “Britney/Brittany”, was unbelievably morally incompetently written.) “Grilled Cheesus” is a train-wreck theologically. There is a lot of talk about religion and spirituality, including the issue of freedom of religion in public schools, but most of it was on a petty level.
There are three main religion-related plots in this episode. In the first plot, a football-playing teenager named Finn makes a grilled cheese sandwich and is surprised to see what he interprets as the image of Jesus on it. He eats the half of the sandwich without the Jesus image on it, but he prays to the other half of the sandwich (“Grilled Cheesus”) to win a football game. Now, being inspired by an unusual event is one thing, but Finn actually prays to the half-sandwich, as if it were Jesus himself. This is a flagrant act of idolatry of a very shallow sort. After all, it just a half-sandwich, not a god. Nevertheless, his team still wins the game.
Finn prays to the half-sandwich a second time, this time asking that he be allowed to touch his girlfriend Rachel’s breasts. (He does not seem to be a deep person by any means.) Soon afterwards Rachel comes to talk with him, noting that she is aiming for a long-term relationship, including eventual marriage, and she wants their children to be raised Jewish. She appears totally assimilated and disconnected from Judaism, and wanting to raise Jewish children even while committing the blatant transgression of intermarriage is severely inconsistent—and her reasons for this lapse of logic are not explained. Finn agrees, even though this is grossly inconsistent with his own belief in Jesus, as shallow as it is. After all, truth is not something one can compromise on. Nevertheless, his agreement pleases Rachel, and she allows him to grope her breasts.
Finn prays yet again to the half-sandwich, this time asking to become quarterback, which he claims will better let him spread the message of Jesus. (I cannot make this up.) Soon afterwards, the current quarterback is injured, and Finn is chosen to take his place. This disturbs Finn greatly, and he believes that he is responsible. He is then counseled by a teacher that he is not really responsible. However, any real discussion of the nature of prayer and how any god which exists responds to them is omitted. Finn gets to sing the song “Losing My Religion”, and he reluctantly eats the half-sandwich. Yes, he eventually reaches the truth that the half-sandwich is not a deity, but not particularly well, and this journey is one he should have had enough active brain cells to know not to take in the first place.
The second main religious plot centers on Kurt, stereotypical homosexual teenager. Kurt dislikes church because much of Christianity is opposed to homosexuality. In other words, “I do not like the message. Therefore the message is wrong.” This is a blatantly childish and illogical sentiment, as reality does not bend to accommodate how we want it to be. Kurt’s father gets sick and is hospitalized. Many of Kurt’s fellow glee club members want to pray for Kurt’s father, putting them at odds with Kurt, who is offended. (Quick side note: Kurt’s irrationality also extends to medicine, as he has someone perform acupuncture on his father.) Eventually Kurt is mollified enough to let his fellow glee club member to take him to church. He does not become a believer, but learns not to be offended by others seeking supernatural aid. Tolerance is a good message, but Kurt still gets an F in theology. (Not to mention song choice. He twists “I Want to Hold Your Hand” out of its original context, and it comes out somewhat creepy.)
The third main religious plot centers on the song choices of the glee club, prompted by Finn’s declaration of having gotten religion. They want to sing religious songs, which Will Schuester wants to moderate down to just “spiritual”. Evil cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is opposed, ostensibly because it would be a violation of separation of church and state. Frankly, I am not clear it would be. For teachers to demand that students subscribe to particular religious views or engage in particular religious activity in public school would definitely be a violation. However, separation of church and state is not a ban on religion in public schools, and students are free to initiate and participate in their own religious activities. Thus if they chose to sing blatantly religious songs at glee club, they might well be able to get away with it. Sue reveals to Will that she lost her faith long ago when her big sister became ill (apparently referring to her suffering from Down syndrome) and her prayers that she be healed went unanswered. This is a naïve view of prayer. Prayer is fundamentally talking to a deity. Now, what sort of deity worth anything would be shallow enough to just pay attention to prayer, weighing it above and beyond all other behavior He/She demands? And why should Sue’s prayer be weighed so heavily above and beyond any other factor? And why should Sue’s sister be exempt from illness, which we all are subject to? Why should not getting what one wants from a god mean that the god does not exist? Later in the episode, Sue’s sister Janey tells Sue that she does believe in God and that He does not make mistakes—a position which she does not explain. Nevertheless, it is enough for Sue to soften her position, and she does object to the glee club’s ultimate choice of a song, “(What If God Was) One of Us”.
In short, this episode handles religious belief with next to no depth. This is disappointing since most humans have enough brain cells to do better than this.
Topic 1: For someone who was supposed to be the Jewish Mashiaḥ (= Messiah), Jesus is almost totally unmentioned in Jewish tradition. I say “almost” because there is one passage in the Talmudh Bavli which might refer to Jesus, though the story presented is very different from anything presented in the Gospels. Thus is it written in Sanhedhrin 43a (my translation):
[Quote from the Mishnah under discussion:] “And a herald goes out before him [one condemned to death by a court]”—before him, yes, from the beginning [forty days before], no.
But it was taught: On the eve of Pesaḥ [= Passover] they hung Yeshu the Noṣri; and the herald goes out before him forty days: “Yeshu the Noṣri goes out to be stoned because he practiced magic and incited [to transgression] and tempted Yisra’el; all those who know for him any merit, let him come and teach it.” And they did not find for him merit, and they hung him on the eve of the Pesaḥ.
‘Ulla’ said: And you will think [this is something to bring a proof from]? Is Yeshu the Noṣri one worthy to overturn [judgement] in his merit? He was an inciter, and the Merciful One said “You will not pity and will not cover over him [an inciter]” (Deuteronomy 13:9). But Yeshu is different, for he was close to the government [and thus the Sanhedhrin needed to give him every opportunity to have his name cleared, even though they knew this would not actually happen].
Our Masters taught: Yeshu the Noṣri had five students: Matta’y, Naqqa’y, Neṣer, and Buni, and Todhah.
They brought Matta’y. He said to them, “Will Matta’y be killed? Isn’t it written, ‘When [mathay] will I come and see the face of ’Elohim?’ (Psalms 42:3)?”
They said to him, “Yes, Matta’y will be killed. For it is written: ‘When [mathay] will he die and his name be lost?’ (Psalms 41:6, as if it were ‘Matta’y will die and his name be lost’)”.
They brought Naqqa’y. He said to them, “Will Naqqa’y be killed? Isn’t it written, ‘And one clean [naqi] or righteous you will not kill’ (Exodus 23:7)?”
They said to him, “Yes, Naqqa’y will be killed. For it is written: ‘In secret he will kill one clean [naqi] (Psalms 10:8).”
They brought Neṣer. He said to them, “Will Neṣer be killed? Isn’t it written, ‘And a stem [neṣer] from his root will bear fruit’ (Isaiah 11:1)?”
They said to him, “Yes, Neṣer will be killed. For it is written: ‘And you will be throw from your grave like an abominated stem [neṣer]’ (Isaiah 14:19).”
They brought Buni. He said to them, “Will Buni be killed? Isn’t it written, ‘My son [beni], my firstborn is Yisra’el’ (Exodus 4:22)?”
They said to him, “Yes, Buni will be killed. For it is written: ‘Behold, I kill your son [binkha], your firstborn’ (Exodus 4:23).”
They brought Todhah. He said to them, “Will Todhah be killed? Isn’t it written, ‘A song for thanks [todhah]’ (Psalms 100:1)?”
They said to him, “Yes, Todhah will be killed. For it is written: ‘One who sacrifices a thanksgiving-offering [todah] will honor Me’ (Psalms 50:23).”
The elements that are the same between this passage and the Gospels are the central character’s name (Yeshu the Noṣri = Jesus the Nazarean), that he had some sort of powers and incited people to violate the Torah, that he had disciples, that one of the disciples is named Matta’y (= Matthew), the Sanhedhrin tried Yeshu and found him guilty, and (in accordance with John) he was executed on the day before Pesaḥ. On the other hand, this Yeshu was a magician and inciter to ‘avodhah zarah (“strange worship” = idolatry and polytheism) and not a prophet or the Son of God, he was stoned and hung and not crucified, his execution was announced 40 days in advance and was not done hastily, he was close to the government, he was executed by the Sanhedhrin and not the Romans, and he had five disciples and not 12. And four of the disciples’ names are unlike those in the New Testament. Notably strange is that the canonical Gospels all disagree with this passage and claim that the Romans, not the Sanhedhrin, executed Jesus, even though they go out of their way to lamely pin the blame on the Jews. Intuition suggests that the Christian version of the story may have undergone a period in which they shifted blame to the Romans and then flip-flopped back again to blame the Jews, but this is just speculation on my part.
Rather unusual is the second part of the passage, in which every disciple gives a reason he should live, citing verse in the Hebrew Bible as word-play, and he is condemned with another verse in equal and opposite word-play. While the first part of the passage is (so far as I know) at least historically possible, the second part is rather unrealistic and reads like fiction, and a truncated one at that since the charges against the disciples are not mentioned and neither are their executions. Intuition suggests this section is a legend that was added to the first section.
Topic 1: The last three episodes of V, “Welcome to the War”, “Pound of Flesh”, and “John May”. (I know I am tardy in reporting. I got behind due to Pesaḥ, and I hope this will be a start towards catching up.) The resistance is taking morally questionable, desperate actions. This is to be expected in war.
More interestingly, the V leader Anna is being filled out as a disturbing character. She has a severe lack of empathy, and she sets out to purge the Vs of anyone who fails a test for lack of empathy, lest such people have qualms about whatever the Vs are trying to accomplish on Earth. So lacking in compassion is Anna that she orders those to fail the test to commit suicide, even if they have never shown the least sign of rebellion. Not to mention that after mating with a V with the intention of producing soldiers, it is strongly implied (though not actually shown) that Anna eats her mate. Coupled with the revelation that “Bliss” is a form of emotional control, there is enough evidence to believe that is any sane, functional society of sentient beings, Anna would be locked away in a mental hospital for being a psychopath with a goddess complex.
Tangent: Given that the Vs live under a dictatorship, they may well be in a period of technological stagnation—despite all appearances of them being advanced. Innovation requires freedom to question. Anna wants to be obeyed without question, and she is prepared to slaughter anyone who gives the least hint that they may ever question her. This is not a good setting for progress.
Also brought up in the question of when it is morally acceptable to lie. Most notably, Ryan has been lying to his girlfriend Valerie—enlisting her obstetrician to lie, too—about the baby she is carrying. Unfortunately, the writers decided to go ahead with the original series’ bad idea of human-V hybridization (the chances of which being possible are dwarfed by the probability of successfully crossing a human and a cabbage), and Ryan initially hides the fact that the baby is not normal human and sneaks a supplement into her tea so that they fetus does not kill her. Eventually he changes his mind about lying to her, leaves her a packet of information about what is really going on, and expects to be dumped.
Lashon hara‘ is any needless speech which is true but which may be harmful.
A moreh is a teacher.
Gan is short for gan yeladhim, a literal translation of “kindergarten”.
I will not spoil the punchline here; you will have to read the article yourself.
Topic 3: For today’s religious humor: (courtesy of Mike) a Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic:
(Yes, you are getting a break from LOLcats today.) This cartoon is clearly simplified, but there is a kernel of truth in it. Often people will think only in terms of the last link in their tradition without asking about the whole chain. At the top of the depicted chain is Jesus. At the bottom of the chain is someone from the much loathed Westboro Baptist Church. Why is Jesus so unhappy in the last panel? As best as I can remember, Jesus says nothing about homosexuality in the canonical Gospels; even if I am wrong, it is not something which Jesus put much emphasis on. “God hates fags”, virtually a slogan among the Westboro Baptist Church, simply does not reflect anything Jesus reportedly said. Jesus complains about competing Jewish groups, but he never attacks anyone for having the wrong sexual orientation. Even if Jesus does not approve of homosexuality, which would be normal for an observant Jew, he is very compassionate towards sinners. Think “Do not judge, lest you be judged” and “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone”. The Westboro Baptist Church has failed to look back towards the top of the chain to check whether their views actually derive from that of Jesus.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=061f987d-e8ec-4733-a6f6-c038587123c6)