Notes on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians

Jewish date:  20 Ṭeveth 5774 (evening) (Parashath Wa’era’).

Today’s holidays:  4th Advent (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Bootsy Collins (Church of the SubGenius), Yule Feast (Heathenism).

Greetings.

I really need to learn to post more often.  Below you will find notes on another four epistles from the New Testament.  Sadly, Paul’s religious thinking has not gotten any better.  (I also feel like I should start looking for Bibleman episodes on YouTube.  I ran across the source of something I remembered from the three Bibleman episodes I have seen in Ephesians, and since Bibleman periodically quoted the New Testament, I could probably squeeze quite a lot of the show.  And for the uninitiated, I am certain the show merits attention; it was popular enough that people made fun of it.)

I also am now very slowly working may way through The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley, a Neopagan retelling of the legend of King Arthur.  In the introduction, Bradley reports that while she wrote fiction, she used a virtual who’s who of major figures in Neopaganism as sources.  So far it really shows in how the fictional setting is structured and how the characters think and behave.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

---

GALATIANS

Galatians 1:1-5—Paul greets the Christians of Galatia, claiming Jesus died to save them from their sins according to God.

Galatians 1:6-10—Paul preaches holding by the “accepted” gospel rather than other gospels. (Why any gospel is accepted is not stated.)  Paul emphasizes the principle of trying to win God’s approval rather than human approval.

Galatians 1:11-24—Paul says that he was called by God and notes his conversion on the road to Damascus and subsequent history.

Galatians 2:1-10—Paul emphasizes his belief that he is the apostle to the gentiles, while Peter and company are supposed to be apostles to the Jews.  Paul seems to believe in something of a conspiracy against him.

Galatians 2:11-21—Paul claims to have publicly clashed with Peter, arguing that Peter is a hypocrite and emphasizing justification through faith alone and the death of Jesus.

Galatians 3:1-14—Paul argues for justification by faith by citing various verses from the Hebrew Bible out of context.  He cites Genesis 15:6 as if YHWH justified ’Avraham by faith, completely ignorning all the deeds ’Avraham did.  Some botched form of Genesis 12:3 or 18:18 or 22:18 is taken as a prophecy of justification of non-Jews by faith, even though such justification is mentioned at all.  Paul misquotes Deuteronomy 27:26 as if it says that whoever does not do everything in the Torah is cursed, rather than one who fails to uphold the words of Torah, which actually takes into account human failing, repentance, and forgiveness.  Paul takes Habakkuk 2:4 as if it means that a righteous person is justified by faith, when in means that he/she lives by his belief—and by implication all the behavioral requirements of that belief.  Leviticus 18:5 is misquoted as if it supported justification by faith, when it actually is a strong demand for proper behavior.  Deuteronomy 21:23 is mangled and ripped out to context so it can be treated as if it refers to Jesus, when it actually refers to any executed criminal who is hung on a tree after execution.

Galatians 3:15-25—Paul, while maintaining the involability of covenants (in contradiction with the doctrine of supercessionism), maintains that the promises YHWH gave to ’Avraham (Genesis 13:15 and 24:7) as applicable to Jesus, Jesus being the “seed” spoken of; this is untenable, as Jesus  did not inherit the Land of Yisra’el.  Paul feels free to rant on about his recurring absurd claim that the Torah was given to make people guilty so that they could be saved through faith.

Galatians 3:26-4:7—Paul claims there are no distinctions in Jesus and that through him all become the seed of ’Avraham and heirs of the promises to him—clearly not what the original promises claim.  But Paul does not have much respect for the simple meaning of the Hebrew Bible in the first place.

Galatians 4:8-20—Paul is in anguish that the Galatians are too observant and that they do not fully accept his ways.

Galatians 4:21-31—Paul allegorizes the story of Haghar and Sarah, stripping it completely of its original meaning.  Haghar and her descendarts are made symbols of the covenant of Sinay and labeled as slaves, while Sarah and her descendants are made symbols of the “new covenant” and labeled as free.  Isaiah 54:1 and Genesis 21:10, both misquoted, are cited in an attempt to give the apperance that this allegory has any support.

Galatians 5:1-12—Paul again pushes justification by faith.  He claims that that the circumcized should keep the Torah, but sees this as an inferior path.

Galatians 5:13-26—Paul sums up the Torah with Leviticus 19:18.  (What?  If the Torah demands love and Paul repudiates keeping the Torah, does Paul repudiate love?)  Paul promotes living by the Spirit and contrary to one’s sinful nature.  This suggests that Paul makes a distinction between not violating the Torah and not acting sinfully, strange as that sounds.  Paul may also be thinking in very much emotional rather than rational terms.  Paul promotes love, as if it were something the Torah is against.  (It is not.  He is not particularly logical in this chapter.  He seems more interested in proclaiming how great his new ideology is, honesty be damned.)

Galatians 6:1-10—Paul promotes living by his ideas and the Spirit.

Galatians 6:11-18—Paul believes that those who promote circumcision are trying to avoid being persecuted and so that they can boast.  The idea that Jews may genuinely believe that keeping the Torah and thus circumcision is the correct thing to do escapes Paul completely.

EPHESIANS

Ephesians 1:1-2—Greetings.

Ephesians 1:3-14—Paul gives a summary of his Jesus-centered theology of salvation and grace.  Notably Paul speaks of the believers as being predestined.

Ephesians 1:15-23—Paul has prayed for the faithful Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:1-10—Paul holds that nonbelievers are “dead” in their sins, while the believers are “alive” in Jesus.

Ephesians 2:11-22—In keeping with his supercessionist theology, Paul holds that non-Jews can become one in Jesus, as if the church were one man.

Ephesians 3:1-13—Paul admits that the “mystery” of Jesus in his posession was not given to anyone before him, and that he is the one to preach to the non-Jews.  I.e., what he is doing is something different from what Christians have been preaching and doing before.  It is no wonder that Paul was in conflict with the Apostles.

Ephesians 3:14-21—Paul prays for the Ephesians.

Ephesians 4:1-16—Paul again pushes the idea of the believers being one in Jesus, along with other onenesses.  He cites Psalms 68:19 in a botched form to implausibly claim support to the idea of grace as apportioned by Jesus.

Ephesians 4:17-5:30 —Paul urges his followers to behave morally.  Despite his general attitude of antinomianism, he does not take it to its logical conclusion.  Believers are said to be “children of light”.  Paul uses a fabricated quote to support his position.

Ephesians 5:21-32—Paul holds that just as Jesus is the head of the church and the believers the body, in a couple the husband is the head and the wife the body.  The wife must submit to the husband, and the husband must love his wife.  This may not be modern equality (or even something really approaching it anywhere people these days would like), but it is not the most extreme sexism either.  Paul cites Genesis 2:24 to support that a man should love his wife (not quite correctly), though he has no support for the inequality. 

Ephesians 6:1-4—Paul exhorts children to obey their parents, citing Deuteronomy 5:15.  He also wants parents to train their children.

Ephesians 6:5-9—Paul commands slaves to obey their masters  like God.  He also commands masters to treat their slaves well.

Ephesians 6:10-20—Paul exhorts his followers to put on metaphorical “armor of God”.  This is given a twist in Bibleman, in which the superhero Bibleman wears literal armor of God.

Ephesians 6:21-24—Paul wraps up his letter.

PHILIPPIANS

1:1-11—Paul greets the Philipians, thanks God for them, and prays for them.

1:12-30—Paul strongly identifies with his mission and his longing for Jesus.  He wants the Philipians to be so dedicated, too.

2:1-11—Paul promotes imitation of Jesus, emphasizing humility.

2:12-18—Paul wants his followers to be pure, in contrast with the rest of that generation, which he characterizes as evil.

2:19-30—Paul plans to send to the Philippians two men he considers comendable.

3:1-11—Paul denigrates circumcision and following the Torah in favor of believing in Jesus and seeking to imitate him.  Do note that Jesus according to the Gospels, while heretical, is not antinomian.  Paul’s idea of Jesus, on the other hand, is clearly antinomian.

3:12-21—Paul encourages his followers.  He characterizes his opponents as materialists interested only in their own pleasure and his followers as anything but.

4:1-9—Paul encourages his followers to behave themselves.

4:10-23—Paul thanks God and the Philippians.

COLOSSIANS

1:1-14—Paul gives thanks and prays for the Colossians.

1:15-23—Paul gives a summary of his views of Jesus as extremely important and supreme over every other being—except God.  Jesus is God’s “image” and “firstborn”.  Paul does not seem to hold by trinitarianism.

1:24-2:5—Paul believes he is on a Divine mission to bring the mystery of Jesus to others.  He admits this mystery was previously unknown.

2:6-23—Paul pushes dedication to Jesus.  Paul becomes explicitly antinomian, even denying Divine origin of the rules.

3:1-17—The problem with antinomianism is that if there are no rules, then anything goes—a potential disaster for society.  Paul therefore promotes his own idea of morality, a split between body and soul and an explicit aversion to undesirable emotions.  Contrast with the Torah, which promotes good behavior but does not emphasize emotions.

3:18-4:1—Paul lays out rules for households.  Wives are to be submissive to their husbands, children to their parents, and slaves to their masters.  Note that these relationships are not meant to be one-way.  Husbands are supposed to care for their wives, parents for their children, and masters for their slaves.

4:2-6—Paul asks for prayer and care in conversation.

4:7-18—Paul concludes with greetings to specific people.

Notes on 2 Corinthians + Paul's Neopagan-like thinking

Jewish date:  21 Shevaṭ 5773 (Parashath Yithro).

Today’s holidays:  Friday of the Third Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Chronos (Church of the SubGenius), Candlemass/Festival of Light (Ritual of the Elements) (Thelema), Imbolc (Neopaganism).

Greetings.

I really need to find more time to work on my blogs…

Progress on reading the New Testament is slow.  Koinē Greek is a complex language, and Paul loves to wax poetic in it.  Included below is my latest installment on the New Testament, my notes on 2 Corinthians, for what they are worth.  Paul has not gotten any more rational or lucid.  If I can tie this in my series on Neopaganism, I get the impression that while Paul was a monotheist, he was thinking a lot like a Neopagan.  As recorded in Acts, Paul had a vision of Jesus, and the emotional effect on him was so powerful that he was an instant convert.  The emotional effect was so powerful that it took days for him to recover enough to interact with other humans.  By virtue of his vision, Paul believed himself an apostle, and he went off on his own vision of Christianity, one different from that the people who knew Jesus believed and practiced.  Very much like Neopagans, Paul put an emphasis on having a strong emotional experience over following formal rules.

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

’Aharon/Aaron

---

2 Corinthians 1:1-2—Introduction.  Paul maintains that he is a God-chosen apostle of Jesus.

2 Corinthians 1:3-11—Comfort from Jesus.  Subtext of persecution.

2 Corinthians 1:12-2:4—Paul seems to be attributing a change in plans to God and Jesus, as well as not grieving the Christians of Corinth.  Emphasis on faith.

2 Corinthians 2:5-11—Paul preaches love and forgiveness of sinners.  Paul seems to think of himself as an authorized forgiver.

2 Corinthians 2:12-17—Paul went looking for his brother Titus.  He also waxes poetic about those preaching Christianity having the “aroma” of Jesus.

2 Corinthians 3:1-6—Paul uses the metaphor of people being letters from Jesus written with the Spirit.  Paul promotes antinomianism, claiming “the letter kills”.

2 Corinthians 3:7-18— Paul continues promoting antinomianism, claiming the Torah as bring death and his antinomianism of the spirit as bringing righteousness.  (As if YHWH did not want us to do what He actually told us to do.)  Exodus 34:34 might be cited, misquoted and ripped out of context.

2 Corinthians 4:1-18—Paul uses the metaphor of unbelievers being in darkness.  He cannot understand that they might have good reasons for doubting that there is anything special about Jesus and claims that “the god of this age has blinded” them.  Paul complains about persecution, casting the persecuted Christians (persecuted even unto death) as working in the same mode of the persecuted Jesus.  Cites Genesis 1:3 (botched) and Psalms 116:10 under the delusion that they are relevant.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10—Paul mixes metaphors, talking about being clothed with a heavenly building.  He seems to be talking about an eagerness to go to Heaven.

2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2—Paul speaks about living for Jesus rather than oneself and becoming reconciled to him.  Cites Isaiah 49:8 in botched form and out of context.

2 Corinthians 6:3-13—Paul readily accepts persecution.

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1—Paul encourages separation from unbelievers, identifying the believers with the Temple.  Cites something which might be a botched version of Leviticus 26:12, Jeremiah 32:28, or Ezekiel 37:27, a fabricated quote, and a botched version of 2 Samuel 7:14.

2 Corinthians 7:2-16—Paul seems to be happy, because the believers in Corinth are such wonderful people.

2 Corinthians 8:1-15—Paul promotes love and generosity, citing Exodus 16:18, which is completely irrelevant.

2 Corinthians 8:16-9:5—Paul praises Titus and notes him being sent.

2 Corinthians 9:6-15—Paul encourages the believers to “sow” and “reap” generously, citing Psalms 112:9 unbelievably and incorrectly.

2 Corinthians 10:1-18—Paul defends his ministry, somewhat illucidly, but seeming to think that he has some sort of authority and power.  Cites something which might be a botched version of Jeremiah 9:23 irrelevantly.

2 Corinthians 11:1-15—Paul seems to be encouraging his followers to form a strong emotional relationship with Jesus, drawing on the frequently sexual symbolism for the relationship between YHWH and Bene Yisra’el in the Hebrew Bible.  Paul thinks of himself as equal to the apostles.  He accuses at least some of his opponents of being “false apostles”, bringing up Satan as a precedent.

2 Corinthians 11:16-33—Paul boasts about all the suffering he has undergone.

2 Corinthians 12:1-10—Paul relates someone who had an ecstatic vision.  He also talks about having a thorn in his flesh and interpretting it completely in theological terms rather than as something to be dealt with by removing it himself.

2 Corinthians 12:11-21—Paul asserts again that he is not inferior to the apostles and expresses concern for the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 13:1-10—Paul cites Deuteronomy 19:15 in slightly botched form and irrelevantly to try to add more authority to his visits.  Paul claims that Jesus is “in” the Corinthians and encourages people to strengthen themselves in faith.

2 Corinthiatns 13:11-14—Paul sends his final greetings.

THE OFFICIAL COMMONSENSE RULES FOR MISSIONARIES

Jewish date:  29 Tammuz 5772 (Parashath Maṭṭoh-Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays:  The Three Weeks (Judaism), Thursday of the Fifteenth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Dr. Doom/St. Thulsa Doom (Church of the SubGenius), Lucaria (ancient Roman religion), Feast Day of the Magi: Krishna (Thelema).

Greetings.

I know two posts in one day is very unusual for me, but I just read an article and started to complain about it on Facebook, and I realized my commentary was turning into a mini-article of its own.  So I just decided to post here instead and let it get automagically reposted to Facebook.

The article in question is “Christians Flood Knesset with ‘New Judaism’”, which deals with members of the Keneseth finding literature promoting the New Testament from the “Bible Society of Israel”, a Christian/Jewish-rite Christianity (“Messianic Jewish”) group, in their mailboxes.

This is a textbook lesson of how not to make converts.  As such, I am presenting rules for would-be missionaries to follow whenever trying to make converts.

WARNING:  There is no way to be gentle about this, so the rules are extremely blunt and are guaranteed (to the extent that one can reliably predict future) to offend missionaries.  Here we go:

~~~~~~~~~~

THE OFFICIAL COMMONSENSE RULES FOR MISSIONARIES

Rule 1:  Never try to convert people who are hostile to you trying to convert them.  (E.g., knowledgable Jews are generally hostile to attempts by Christians to convert them.)  They are practically guaranteed to be offended and not listen.

Rule 2:  Never try to imply to people that you know their religion better than they do.  That may sometimes be true, but it is a very easy way to cause offense and ruin your chances for making converts.  If you are unlucky or foolish enough to deal with people who know their own religion better than you do, you will just end up looking like an idiot and make no converts.

Rule 3:  Do not ask people who may be offended and think you are an idiot to help you in your quest to make converts.  They most certainly will not, and the level of the offense automatically is increased.

Rule 4:  Do not act surprised when people get offended and think you are an idiot and try to apologize for causing offense.  No one with any sense will believe it, and since the offense was completely predictable, you end up looking even more like an idiot.

Rule 5:  Expect people who are offended by missionaries to act against you.  Some intelligent, knowledgeable people will enjoy rhetorically cutting your arguments to pieces.  If you are really unlucky, the offended party may become physically violent.

Rule 6:  Never do anything that will offend people in power and make you look like an idiot in their eyes.  They may decide to make your life harder or shut you down completely.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, as for what your humble blogger thinks of these people, what I have written on the New Testament ought to be quite enough.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Christian missionary literature in Israel

Jewish date:  9 Siwan 5772 (Parashath Naso’).

Today’s holidays:  Wednesday of the Eighth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of Marcina (Greek Orthodox Christianity), Feast Day of St. Winnie Ruth Judd (Church of the SubGenius), Feast Day of Joan of Arc (Thelema)

Greetings.

I would like to note something before I forget about it.  I have requested free books from missionaries before.  (Why should I not take advantage of their generosity for my research?)  Recently I requested a number of books from Christian missionaries again.  And I received quite a lot:

This time most of what I requested was in Hebrew, though there is a copy of the American Standard Version (in English) and الكتَابُ الُمقَدّسُ, which is the Christian Bible (Hebrew Bible + New Testament) in Arabic.  (I started working on Arabic again, and I am not looking forward to reading the Qur’an in the original.) Two of the books are copies of the entire Christian Bible in Hebrew (the New Testament part being a translation), and another two are just the New Testament.  (Actually I got three, but one is a duplicate.)  The other books include topics such as Christian theology, religion and science, history, and fiction.  Interestingly, everything was sent to me in plain envelopes whose return addresses were post office boxes.  In no case did any envelope give any indication that Christian missionaries were the senders.  I am aware that Jews in Israel tend to hate missionaries, but this level of secrecy suggests extreme fear or paranoia.  Also, I got a rather high rate of fulfillment of my requests, indicating that these cautious missionaries are also very serious about spreading their message.

If anyone knows where I can request a free Zohar, Tanya’, Arabic Qur’an, or Greek New Testament (the one I have is interlinear), please let me know.  I have not been able to acquire any of these for free yet.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

GCB is not as bad as I feared it would be

Jewish date:  20 Nisan 5772 (Parashath Shemini).

Today’s holidays:  Ḥol hamMo‘edh Pesaḥ (Judaism), Day 5 of the ‘Omer (Judaism), Thursday in the Octave of Easter (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Print Olive (Church of the SubGenius), Feast of Mary d’Este Sturges (Thelema).

Greetings.

And now for another attempt at getting caught up blogging.  Today’s topic is the TV series GCB, which I have been watching on Hulu ever since Barry made me aware of the show’s religious nature.

The pilot episode struck me as something largely stereotyped and poorly thought out.  The main protagonist of the series is Amanda Vaughn, a woman whose husband Billy runs a scam, tries to flee with the money, and dies in a car crash with his mistress due to them doing something blatantly stupid and disgusting while driving.  Even though Amanda is not involved in the scam, the government seizes most of her and Billy’s property.  Nearly penniless, Amanda and her children, Laura and Will, return to a high-socioeconomic status section of Dallas to live with her (Amanda’s) mother Gigi.  This has two big downsides:

1) Gigi is crazy and acts in ways which drove Amanda to leave Dallas in the first place.  E.g., she dresses up Laura provocatively (and your humble blogger is strongly tempted to use much more derogatory language than that), teaches Will to mix (alcoholic) drinks, and fakes Amanda having a secret admirer in order to be able to give her expensive presents.

2) Amanda was a “meal girl” back in high school, and many of those people she was mean to still live in Dallas.  The list of regulars whom she offended is long enough to require a scorecard to keep track of:

• Carlene Cockburn:  Chief antagonist, formerly called “Kitten”, formerly very plain, now a plastic surgery addict and very vindictive.
• Sharon Peacham:  Ex-beauty queen, now food-obsessed housewife with self-esteem issues.  (The people making this show are trying to make it seem she is overweight, but one would never know it without the dialog.)
• Heather Cruz:  Realtor.
• Cricket Caruth-Reilly:  Business woman.  Formerly Bill’s girlfriend until Amanda stole him from her.
• Ripp Cockburn:  Carlene’s husband.
• Zack Peacham:  Sharon’s husband, car salesman.
• Blake Reilly:  Cricket’s husband and business partner, rancher.

These characters are all serious, church-attending Christians, but Amanda is on the receiving end of a lot of rather unpleasant payback.  Carlene, despite frequently citing the Christian Bible (giving book, chapter, and verse), is particularly vindictive and rationalizes immoral behavior (such as “borrowing” a gift card from Amanda in order to be able to determine who her secret admirer is), intimidating Sharon into helping her.  Heather lies to Amanda to keep her from getting a good home and away from Gigi’s bad influence.  Cricket makes backhanded deals to keep Amanda from getting a good job.  And if all this mean-spirited stereotyping of observant Christians was not bad enough, Zack tries putting his moves on Amanda, and it is strongly implied that Blake is homosexual and is having an affair with his head rancher.

To make things worse, despite deeply regretting what she did in high school, Amanda is something of a hypocrite herself.  Despite Cricket’s efforts, Amanda does land a job—at a Hooters clone called Boobylicious.  And considering that Amanda is downright shocked when Gigi dresses up Laura indecently, the cognitive dissonance should be so huge that even fairly unintelligent people should be able to notice it.  (Those who wonder what is wrong with using sexuality to sell food may wish to reread the Coyote Ugly Sermon.)  The dress which Amanda wears to the Longhorn Ball is also immodest and tasteless.  Clearly Amanda is not being a good role model for her children, especially her daughter.  Admittedly dressing immodestly is not as bad as stealing (according to most of us, so far as your humble blogger can tell), but being less bad is not the same thing as being good.

Add to this that it is revealed that Carlene and Ripp are the real owners of Boobylicious and that the name for the show was originally planned to be Good Christian Bitches, and the initial impression is that the writers are a bunch of mean-spirited hacks who hate Christians and think that compared to them even someone who regularly does something sleazy is better.  And that impression would be wrong.

The writers do carry over everything from the pilot into the succeeding episodes, but the characters are not simple, unchanging cardboard cutouts.  Heather reconciles with Amanda very quickly, and her other “enemies” slowly develop better relations with her, even though so far in the series there has been plenty of friction.  While Carlene is the slowest to improve, she can be moved by argument—preferably citing appropriate scriptural sources—and she does have a conscience and care about other people.  (Her reactions may not always be the most sensible, but she does try.)  Sharon, while the most passive of the main characters, has been on a self-improvement kick since doing some volunteer work at the church and is taking more initiative.

The lack of cardboardness is particularly prominent in romantic relationships.  “Bad guys” in GCB can and do have loving, committed relationships.  To be sure, they have problems, but they work to overcome their problems.  The aforementioned business of Zack hitting on Amanda turns out to be due to some inner turmoil stirred up by her arrival; he repents his mistake and constantly works with Sharon to improve their relationship.  Carlene and Ripp also have some rocky moments, but they remain committed to each other.  Notable is the relationship between Cricket and Blake.  Blake is indeed homosexual, while Cricket is heterosexual.  While they satisfy their sexual urges with other people and do not hide the fact from each other, they are emotionally very intimate.

Also breaking cliché:  So far in the series, Amanda has not been sexually active, despite being the central character, and the only man she has ever been with is her husband Bill.  Carlene has been a little worse, only having gone all the way with Ripp, but having done some things in high school which she is not proud of.  (No details are available; the writers seem to want the viewers to use their imaginations.)  Neither currently violates Christian sexual mores, despite how they dress.

GCB is not what your humble blogger would consider an ideal series, and the content is not for everyone.  But it certainly is not as bad as first impressions suggest it is.

Peace and happy Pesaḥ.

’Aharon/Aaron

Maṣṣah and Paul’s continuing scholarly incompetence

Jewish date:  19 Nisan 5772 (Parashath Shemini).

Today’s holidays:  Ḥol hamMo‘edh Pesaḥ (Judaism), Day 4 of the ‘Omer (Judaism), Wednesday in the Octave of Easter (Roman Catholicism), Annual $30 Donation (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

It has been far too long since I last posted.  A lot of this is due to preparation for Pesaḥ (Passover), though I have had other things keeping me busy, and I hope this post will be a step in the direction of getting caught up.  Towards that, I present two topics today:

1) Relevant to Pesaḥ, some articles on the symbolism of maṣṣah (unleavened bread):  “A new look at Hametz, Matza and everything in between”, “Deconstructing Matzo”, and “Leavened or Unleavened: A History”.  To summarize:  At the time, Egypt was the only place at the time where people made ḥameṣ (leavened bread).  Thus eating maṣṣah, even before leaving Egypt, was a symbolic rejection of Egypt and what it stood for.  This strikes me as a very elegant explanation.

2) My notes on the last chapters of Romans, following up on my notes on chapters 1-4 and 5-12:



Romans 13:1-7—Paul preaches submission to authorities.  This includes the government, which he claims are “God’s servants”.

Romans 13:8-14—Paul preaches love, claiming it is “the fulfillment of the Torah”, glossing over that at best just the moral commandments can be subsumed under the rubric of love.  Cites Exodus 20:12-13 in scrambled order are presented as subsumed under love.  Leviticus 19:18 is given as the source for the commandment of love.

Romans 14:1-23—Paul seems to be preaching that one who is strong in faith should not act in an antinomian way such to cause someone who is weak in faith to stumble, in particularly bringing up food and drink.  (Paul still brings no valid justification for antinomianism.)  Cites fragments of Isaiah 49:18 and Isaiah 45:23 dishonestly as if they were a continuous quote.

Romans 15:1-13—An attempt to back up the previous section.  Cites Psalms 69:10, a botched version of Psalms 18:50, a botched version of Psalms 32:43, Psalms 117:1, and a botched version of Isaiah 11:10 as if they had anything to do with Jesus.

Romans 15:14-22—Paul proclaims himself minister to the Gentiles, appointed by Jesus, trying to back up his appointment with his allegedly having performed miracles.  (Miracles are not actually valid proofs of prophecy when proclaimed by a heretic.)  Cites Isaiah 52:15 as if it had anything to do with Jesus.

Romans 15:23-33—Paul plans to visit Rome.

Romans 16:1-27—Paul sends greetings to various people.


Please note that this is entirely in keeping with Paul’s intellectual dishonesty and scholarly incompetence in the previous chapters.  I am not optimistic about the rest of his letters.


Peace and happy Pesaḥ.

’Aharon/Aaron

The writers for Glee fail exegesis forever

Jewish date:  8 ’Adhar 5772 (Parashath Teṣawweh).

Today’s holidays:  Friday of the First Week of Lent (Roman Catholicism), Bahá’í Month of Fasting (Bahá’í Faith), Feast Day of St. Wonder Woman (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

The goal of this project is the examination of religious fallacies and misinformation.  This happens a lot in popular culture, and one of the shows I am monitoring, Glee, seems particularly prone to this problem whenever it deals with religion.  One of its recent episodes, “Heart”, shows especially bad religious reasoning that is going to annoy me until I report on it.



This is a Valentine’s Day episode.  Among other things, the “God Squad”, a sort of Christian religious club in the high school, decides to raise money by selling “singing Valentines”.  The God Squad has a new member who is a sort of goth until-recently-homeschooled Christian and who notes that Valentine’s Day is a religious holiday.  (It least it was a Catholic holiday.)  Meanwhile, a “Bible thumper” complains to the principal about Santana and Brittany kissing at school, leading him to be paranoid about homosexual public displays of affection.  (Cliché 1:  Thinking one has a right to keep anyone from doing anything which might offend them.)  Santana is understandably annoyed at this, and so she hires the God Squad to give a “singing Valentine” to Brittany.  (Cliché 2:  Petty revenge, the pettiness being that Santana has no evidence that any of the God Squad complained to the principal in the first place.)  The God Squad then discusses among themselves about whether they will actually sing to gay people.  Distressingly, none of them shows any decent understanding of how to interpret the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, jumping immediately into stereotypes and atrocious excuses for reasoning:

1) Mercedes:  Since one in ten people is supposed to be gay, one of the 12 Apostles might have been gay, presumably Simon since he has the “gayest” name.  This assumes that the Apostles were sexually normal, not a foregone assumption.  Also not forgone assumptions are that the incidence of homosexuality in Second Temple Period Israel is the same as in 2012 America and that there is no distinction between having homosexual desires and practicing homosexuality.  Not to mention that the presumed gayness of any Apostle is purely hypothetical, not something actually known.  Thus Mercedes has no argument.

2) Sam:  It is (purportedly) an abomination for a man to lay down with another man.  This is actually a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:22, which prohibits male homosexuality, but a man simply lying next to another man is not prohibited.  Sam, however, grossly misinterprets this as banning sharing a tent in the Cub Scouts.  Thus he starts off with one of the few sources actually relevant to the question of homosexuality in Christianity and then shoots himself in the foot rhetorically when he has no reason to do so.

3) Quinn, trying to counter Sam:  Other abominations (purportedly) include eating lobster, planting different crops in the same field, and giving someone a proud look—but not slavery, and Jesus never mentions slavery.  The prohibition of eating lobster (along with all water-dwelling animals which do not have fins and platelike scales) is Leviticus 11:10, which uses a different term of disapproval, sheqeṣ, than that used for male homosexuality, to‘evah.  The prohibition of planting two different species of seed together is found in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9; in neither verse is it referred a to‘evah or sheqeṣ or any other term of disgust.  I have no idea where Quinn got this alleged prohibition of giving someone a proud look.  Slavery is never called a to‘evah or sheqeṣ by the Hebrew Bible or mentioned by Jesus.  (Paul is a different matter.)  None of this, however, is relevant in the least to question of homosexuality in Christianity.  This is pure rhetoric, not reasoning, and to make things worse, it is clichéd rhetoric.  At best, there is an implied argument that since modern Christians do not think they are bound to keep the Torah, they should not be forbidden to commit homosexuality, which among males is explicitly prohibited by the Torah.  However, none of the characters has the sense to cite even Paul’s specious antinomian arguments.

4) Sam:  Perhaps Jesus was trying no spare Simon’s feelings.  This is just an assumption that there was a gay Apostle.  There could have just as easily been no gay Apostle, so there is no real argument here.

5) Mercedes:  Given that everyone in the God Squad really sucks when it comes to exegesis, Mercedes says she does not want to hurt Santana’s feelings or make anyone do anything they are not comfortable with.  The other members of the God Squad can accept this, but this does not solve the problem of whether to deliver the “singing Valentine” or not.

What do they eventually decide to do?  They deliver the “singing Valentine” on the basis that “Love is love.”  Is there any source for this in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?  No.  The God Squad may have satisfied Santana, but their rationale is poorly justified.  The writers could have done much, much better than this.

Anyone writing about homosexuality, please, please, please do not do anything as lame as what the writers for Glee did.

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

’Aharon/Aaron

Romans 5-12 is no better than Romans 1-4

Jewish date:  29 Shevaṭ 5772 (evening) (Parashath Terumah).

Today’s holidays:  Shrove Tuesday (Christianity), Feast Day of Peter Damian (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Boris Karloff (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

I have previously posted my notes on the Epistle to the Romans 1-4.  Reading and taking notes on the New Testament is going slow but I have gotten myself caught up with writing notes on Romans, and I posting those on chapters 5-12 below.  The contents and Paul’s incompetence (or dishonesty) in citing the Hebrew Bible should give a good idea why reading the New Testament is going so slow.

Romans 5—Paul introduces the concept that Jesus suffered and died for us as a demonstration of God’s love in order that we may be justified through faith.  Paul also introduces the concept of original sin.  This makes sense in terms of his delusion that we are all corrupt; no matter how good someone behaves, Paul ascribes the sin of ’Adham to him/her in order to rationalize the need to believe in Jesus for this person to receive grace and be saved.  Paul sets up a symmetry that ’Adham introduced death and sin into the world and Jesus introduced life and and justification.  Paul even goes so far as to claim that the Torah was given to increase wrath, all the more to increase grace as well.  Original sin, as a taint on all humanity, is not present in the Hebrew Bible; rather everyone is to be punished for their own sins and for failing to learn from the mistakes of their ancestors.  That one person should die for others has no basis whatsoever in the Hebrew Bible.  That the Torah should be only to increase sin makes no sense, as large portions of the Torah, not to mention the rest of the Hebrew Bible, are given over to discussing and requesting repentance; there is no need for faith in Jesus if YHWH has already given a solution to the problem of sin.

Romans 6—Having thrown himself behind justification through faith in Jesus, Paul insists we are “dead” to sin but “alive” to Jesus.  There is a subtext that the natural animal desires of humans are evil.  Paul tries to temper his antinomianism by denying that we should sin but simultaneously claiming that by grace were are freed from sin.

Romans 7—Paul makes a questionable comparison of the applicability of the Torah with marriage.  Paul affirms the goodness of the Torah, citing Exodus 20:13/Deuteronomy 5:17, but denies that one can actually keep it.  Yet again, Paul fails to deal with the question of why YHWH should bother giving the Torah if it is not meant to be kept.

ֳRomans 8—More of the justification through faith in Jesus business.  ’Abba’ is Aramaic for “father”.  Cites Psalms 44:23 out of context.

Romans 9—Paul admits that the Jews are the chosen people, but he tries to turn this into a mere Divine whim and cites various verses out of context as if Divine displeasure at one time means Divine displeasure ever afterwards.  Cites Genesis 21:12, Genesis 18:14, Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1:2-3 (botched), Exodus 33:19, Exodus 9:16, a botched variation on Isaiah 29:16 or Isaiah 45:9, Hosea 2:23, Hosea 1:10, Isaiah 10:22-23 (botched), Isaiah 1:9, and a really botched combination of Isaiah 8:14 and Isaiah 28:16.

Romans 10—Paul promotes justification of faith and downplays actually practicing what is written in the Torah.  To this extent he dishonestly cites out of context Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 30:12, Deuteronomy 30:13, Deuteronomy 30:14, Isaiah 28:16 in botched form, the nonexistent Joel 2:32, Isaiah 52:7 in botched form, Isaiah 53:1 in botched form, Psalms 19:5, Deuteronomy 32:21 in botched form, Isaiah 65:1, and Isaiah 65:2 in botched form.  Deuteronomy 30:12-14 blatantly refers to the Torah and not Jesus as Paul would have us believe.

Romans 11—Paul defames the Jews (again) by quoting the Hebrew Bible out of context (a botched version 1 Kings 19:10 or 1 Kings 19:14, a botched version of 1 Kings 19:18, something which could be a botched version of Deuteronomy 29:3 or Isaiah 29:10, and a botched version of Psalms 69:23-24) and tries to argue for their salvation by their being branches grafted on Israel.  He admits that Israel will be saved (citing a botched version of Isaiah 59:20-21 and Isaiah 27:9), but he has the bizarre notion that it will happen because they are disobedient and thus may receive mercy.  This fits in with his untenable notion that none of us can really do what YHWH has told us to do.  Paul further cites Isaiah 40:13 in botched form and something which is allegedly Job 41:11 but bears no resemblance.

Romans 12:1-2—Paul preaches the idea that we should view ourselves as “living sacrifices”, which sounds from the phraseology that he advocates separation from the world.

Romans 12:3-8—Paul advocates we think of ourselves as members of a single body in Jesus.

Romans 12:9-21—Paul preaches a morality of love, one taken to extremes of pacifism, as advocated by Jesus, citing Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Ḥanukkah, “Jesus Responds to Rick Perry's "Strong" Ad”, and “Uh Oh! The Dirty Truth About Santa's Carbon Footprint”

Jewish date:  29 Kislew 5772 (Parashath Wayyiggash).

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.)

In the meantime, you are getting miscellany.

1) This is Ḥanukkah, and so I present a number of relevant articles:  “The Triumph of Chanukah”, “Hanukka, extremism and religious freedom”, Hanukkah and How War Should Be Celebrated”, “Chanukah: The Fight for What’s Right!”, and for a bit of irony, “Hanukkia lit in spot Hitler decreed Final Solution”.

2) “Jesus Responds to Rick Perry's "Strong" Ad”, submitted by Barry.

Jesus Responds to Rick Perry's "Strong" Ad from DC Pierson      

This is totally fair and gets what Jesus claims in the Gospels right.

3) And something more or less in the way of religious humor, but with a serious point, for our Christian friends:  “Uh Oh! The Dirty Truth About Santa's Carbon Footprint”.

Peace, happy Ḥannukah, merry Christmas, and happy whatever holiday you celebrate this time of year.

’Aharon/Aaron

The heresy of Paul in Acts and Romans 1-4

Jewish date:  6 Kislew 5772 (Parashath Wayyeṣe’).

Today’s holidays:  Nativity Fast (Christianity), Friday of the First Week of Advent (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Rodan (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

I am still reading the New Testament in Koinē Greek, and I am not enjoying it one bit.
The Acts of the Apostles is nothing less than propaganda for Paul.  Once Paul has his famous vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, he is depicted as perfect and his Jewish opponents as nothing less than hypocritical scum.  Paul engages in preaching and faith-healing like Jesus, only with less personality.  His opponents are depicted as trying to kill him, legally or extralegally on ill-defined charges of heresy.  If there is any historical basis for this, the writer certainly glossed over what anyone found wrong with Paul and probably fabricated any attempts on his life.  Whatever was wrong with Paul, heresy is not sufficient reason for assassination.

Why Jews would hate Paul is made extremely clear in The Epistle to the Romans, in which he explains his belief system, which is nothing less than heresy and worthy of excommunication.  Here are the notes I have written on the first four chapters, which are getting increasingly detailed:


Romans 1—Paul introduces his thesis that faith is all that really matters and cites Habakuk 2:4 to rationalize it, as if any of the prophets ever preached faith without works.  Paul claims that humanity is morally corrupt.

Romans 2—Paul cites Psalms 62:13 and Proverbs 24:12, confirming that YHWH treats humans according to their actions, illogically trying to introduce Jesus into the process.  Paul then accuses Jews of hypocrisy, creating a nonexistent quote by botching Isaiah 52:5 and Ezekiel 36:22—ignoring that the complaints brought in those days may no longer be relevant to those living in later times—and devalues physical circumcision in favor of “circumcision of the spirit”.  This is blatantly illogical.  Since YHWH in the Hebrew Bible puts heavy emphasis on obedience to the Torah, the “circumcision of the heart” mentioned in the Hebrew Bible is dedicating oneself to doing what YHWH commanded, including physical circumcision.

Romans 3—Paul assumes everyone is sinful and should be doomed.  That the Hebrew Bible preaches repentance and the willingness of YHWH to forgive the repentant is utterly ignored.  Psalms 51:6 is torn from context as if it were a pronouncement of doom rather than part of a prayer.  Paul also cites in quick succession, as if they were a continuous passage, a botched version of Ecclesiastes 7:20, a botched version of Psalms 14:1-3/Psalms 53:1-3, Psalms 5:10, Psalms 140:3, a botched version of Psalms 10:7, a botched version of Isaiah 59:7-8, and Psalms 36:2.  None of these passages makes any claim of universal unrighteousness, and many refer directly to the wicked.  (Do note that Psalms is poetry; it is great source material on feelings and prayers, but it is not really useful for statements of fact, as Paul is trying to use it.  Not to mention botching quotes and getting them out of context makes for invalid arguments.)  On this flimsy basis, Paul dishonestly and illogically claims that one cannot be righteous by keeping the Torah and proclaims that justification, for both Jews and non-Jews, is only through faith.

Romans 4—Paul tries to bolster his argument that salvation is only through faith by trying to work it into the case of ’Avraham.  Paul hinges this on Genesis 15:6, which he cannot even quote correctly, which says (in the original Hebrew), “And he [’Avram] believed in YHWH, and he thought it for him [as] righteousness.”  The word I have translated as “righteousness”, ṣedhaqhah, also can mean “justice”, and it is commonly used to denote something akin to charity, only with connotations that helping the needy is done not out of compassion, but because it is the right thing to do.  ’Avraham had had multiple prophetic encounters with YHWH.  Furthermore, YHWH had kept him alive on a journey across the Middle East, giving him some reason to believe that he was not hallucinating.  To believe in YHWH was the sensible thing for ’Avraham to do; it is a matter of intellectual honesty, not special piety.  The Hebrew is also  ambiguous as to who considered ’Avraham’s belief righteousness, ’Avraham or YHWH.  Nowhere does YHWH claim that ’Avraham is righteous merely due to belief.  In contradiction to Paul’s thesis, ’Avraham doubts that he will have children and later on that he will have an heir through Sarah, yet YHWH never holds his doubts against him.  Paul tries to bolster his faulty claim with Psalms 32:1-2, which deals with YHWH’s forgiveness, not belief, before returning to ’Avraham and spouting antinomianism, wrongly implying that all nations are descended from ’Avraham by misinterpreting Genesis 17:4 and Genesis 15:5, ignoring that ’Avraham was not so unwavering in his faith.  Paul still does nothing to explain the blatantly obvious problem that it makes no sense whatsoever for YHWH to give the Torah and demand adherence to it over and over again—a matter of action—if what He really is interested in is faith.

To sum up my reading of Romans so far:  Paul is grossly intellectually dishonest and engages in rhetorical fraud to try to prove his points.  Follow him and anyone like him at your own peril.

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

’Aharon/Aaron

The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 5, or, The Acts of Ya‘aqov, Man of Kefar Sekhanya’

Jewish date: 26 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays: The Three Weeks (Judaism), Thursday of the Seventeenth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Marty Feldman (Church of the SubGenius).

Upcoming events:

• 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.

Greetings.

And now for the final planned installment on Jesus-related material in the Talmudh. (See also “The Gospel According to the Pharisees”, “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, part 2”, “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 3”, and “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 4, or, The Gospel of Ben Seṭadha’”.) This last passage, which occurs in two versions, deals with a disciple of Yeshu the Noṣri.

Talmudh Bavil, ‘Avodhah Zara’ 16b-17a:

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.

Qoheleth [Ecclesiastes] Rabbah 1:8:

[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.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 3

Jewish date: 22 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays: The Three Weeks (Judaism), Seventeenth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Sylvester Graham (Church of the SubGenius).

Upcoming events:

• 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

As intended, I am continuing my series on Jesus in the Talmudh. (See “The Gospel According to the Pharisees” and “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, part 2”.) Today’s installment (in what looks like it is going to drag out to at least five installments) deals with what the Rabbis thought about Yeshu the Noṣri, who may well be Jesus of Nazareth.

Talmudh Bavli, Berakhoth 17b:

[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.

Talmudh Bavli, Giṭṭin 56b-57a:

’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?”

[Yeshu] said to him, “Yisra’el [Israel].”

[’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.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Review of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

Jewish date:  8 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Pineḥas).

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.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron