Baseball Playoffs

Some excitement -- Rays held on for another day, each closer blowing a save. Braves blew it -- got ahead of Kershaw on an error, Freddy Garcia pitching well, but after a failed sacrifice, a two run homer did the trick for the Dodgers late. They are the first team to advance. Pirates have one more shot at that. Go Pirates! Tigers aren't scoring, down 2-1.

Jets Win v. Champs

After a messy penalty filled win and a turnover fest loss, it was a fairly clean game with no turnovers on the Jets side. Down 17-7, the Falcons decided (no FG) to go for it twice at the end of the Half. The Jets won it by two via a go ahead FG after blowing a 13 point lead (soft scoring drive/penalty extending drive). Ha ha. Game the rookie and team can build on.

Part III: Jesus Christ

Reza Aslan begins his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, a case when the title and subtitle is quite telling, with an account of his passionate belief in Christianity as a teenager. The book ends with a discussion how Jesus, the man, not Jesus the Christ, is "worth believing in," though it is unclear to what degree is deemed warranted.  The two are not the same; in fact, the book argues that the moment the basic origins of the current view of Jesus Christ, the one put forth by Paul, came about, the historical Jesus largely disappeared. Paul in fact had little interest.

My question would be why exactly.  I understand, up to a point, why Jesus, the zealous reformer put forth in the book is worth believing in.  Someone concerned about following "the law" of God (good?), reforming its corruptions and the injustices of the society he lived in and willing to risk his life to promote what he believed in.  But, it is a sort of limited vision, one focused on a particular group (the Jews), labeling others akin to "dogs."  And, apparently, the person was confused on what exactly would occur, that the end of days would come in the time of some who then was alive.  The whole demon stuff also seems a tad bit off.

I would move to support a more universal prophet, which is not surprising, since this is ultimately what Jesus was said to be. Take his very crucifixion, argued to be a grand sacrifice. But, others were "messiahs," and risked death.  If he actually knew his death was to save mankind, it would be a grand thing, but others risked death for a lot less with much less expectation of survival.  The understanding here has a sort of primitive flavor, a "sacrifice" that continues to this day in some ways (e.g., the death penalty is seen by some as a just retribution, life for life). 

Also, as the book notes in its third section, after he died, nothing really appeared to change. The change was later taken to truly have occurred in a supernatural plane, the final judgment to occur after we die, but this is not a "historical" thing to believe in, is it?  Finally, as with miracles, the book cheats -- the Resurrection is not supposed to be "historical," but the people thought it as such. The gospels had Jesus rise and eat, Thomas sticking his finger into the very holes where the nails were drilled into, even a vision something that occurs historically. To the degree some died because of their beliefs, it is a belief in what they thought actually happened.*

Aslan moves past the problematic issue of the Resurrection to address how the after Jesus leaves the scene (one assumes the normal way?), the apostles staid in Jerusalem (though other than Peter and John, the latter only briefly showing up, they basically disappear -- the first martyr is actually Stephen, a Hellenic convert) and were basically Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah.  Jesus' brother (probably Joseph/Mary's son) James took control and opposed Paul when he decided (by direct inspiration) Jesus Christ didn't actually think followers had to follow the Law.

Paul might not have ever won that battle (Acts, with an apparent historical reference to help date it, has him clash with James until right before he made his trip to Rome ... by the way, James was the "first pope" -- to the degree that meant the head of the community of believers -- the "on this rock" business probably a late edition), but time was on his side. First, the Jewish Wars made Jesus, Jewish Zealot not exactly an ideal model. Second, numbers-wise, gentile Jews and pagans provided a much more sizable base of converts.  The idea of a "son of god" would be a lot easier for them to accept than firmly monotheistic Hebrew Jews.

Paul, not concerned with the historical Jesus, in effect was the Father of Christianity.  But, the book is concerned with the historical Jesus. Not that Jesus promoted in that evangelical youth camp when the author was fifteen. Both are of interest -- it is valuable to learn about the origins of the movement, including the "life and times" of its founder.  It also is important to learn about how it developed into the movement it is today, which also helps determine just how to understand and worship today and judge those who do so.  Today is ultimately what we need to worry about the most.

This book helps this effort, if taken with a grain of salt. 

---

* The book cites "one after another" who died for this belief at the time, but we only are told of a few who actually directly saw Jesus rose from the dead that were martyrs.  This would include the likes of Peter, James the Just and Paul, the last not seeing any sort of physical Jesus akin to the later gospel accounts, but clearly some sort of vision of Jesus.

The book also in passing suggests "John" the evangelist is the Apostle John and the "beloved disciple," but that doesn't appear to be the case. It also at times hedges and cites events mentioned in the New Testament, other times without comment assumes (like the agreement set forth in the Apostolic Council in Acts) did occur, when it is unclear that it actually did. 

Long Day of Football

The As playoff game pushed the Charges/Raiders game back, so it finished early in the morning on the East Coast. The game was a key example of the offense losing it, including an early decision to go for it against a weak offense and most of the points off turnovers.

Jesus Bio: His Ministry

I finished the middle portion of the book, which covers Jesus' ministry. Again, we are reminded that many of the events portrayed should not be found to be historical fact, such as Pilate's concerns for his "innocence." Somewhat strangely, Judas Iscariot is left to brief reference in the notes section, though there is an implication that general agreement by the gospels suggest he had an actual historical role in Jesus' arrest.

Also, the gospels' message is not given too in depth of an analysis while various possible interesting matters (such as his involvement with women) is lightly touched upon. Mary Magdalene gets only a passing mention (Bart Ehrman's book is an interesting analysis.) The book does comment on the somewhat strange paucity of references to Joseph, including a quite notable reference of Jesus as the "son of Mary," a very rare example of matrilineal notation.  It also is noted that it is strange that Jesus was not married while also not being part of an isolated community (like the Essenes) or in the wilderness (like John the Baptist). 

The book argues (again a bit too firmly at times) that Jesus somehow decided to be baptized by John the Baptist, who spoke of the end of days being near, not a rare event. Aslan also reminds us just how unstable things were, including great social unrest, economic upheaval and major violence in recent memory, particularly in Galilee. This would all influence Jesus' beliefs as would his lowly origins and the anti-clerical sentiments of his area overall.  Jesus become a discipline of John and eventually went back home to start on his own, particularly filling in a void later after John was arrested.  Jesus particularly became (in)famous when he started to perform miracles, which did not make him unique, though his reasons (as a sign of what was to come) and not doing it for money were more so. 

The book says that it is not really important to determine what 'really happened' here as much as what people believed. And, people believed he committed miracles, including casting out demons, something many today simply aren't comfortable about -- healing the sick? fine. The Exorcist? No.  Well, I do wonder what actually happened there -- it also is relevant to understand the historical Jesus. To know just what he did and how the people understood his actions. Still, again, it is notable that -- and this is not something many would know -- he was not somehow uniquely doing these things.  Others did miracles.  Maybe, the scope of what he did was different -- who knows -- but that is quite a different matter than him being fully unique. 

Jesus was "zealous" -- sort of like an evangelical firmly believing in following the true path, not corrupted by priests or government. He believed the ends of days would come soon, which included the upheaval of the wrongful occupiers of the land promised to the Jews.  The third part of the book will discuss how this "historical" Jesus would eventually be replaced by "Christianity."  The famous question when he is asked about the legitimacy of Rome taxing the Jews is given an interesting spin -- it is sort of a trick answer that in effect says the Roman coins should be given back to Caesar, but that is all he deserves. The land is for the Jews. This in part involves the phrasing of the language used though we get it in Greek, not the Aramaic he used.  Anyway, not sure if -- like the parables -- some Roman would get what he was saying, even if that is what he meant.

I think the overall idea of the book as to his message sounds reasonable enough though it puts forth a somewhat darker view of things, Jesus in effect somewhat toned down after the Jewish Wars to a more establishment figure, so to speak. It also leads one to think that the end was expected. It didn't take much of a prophet to determine that talking about the "ends of days" and temples being destroyed and denouncing the high priests will get you in trouble at this time. People were killed for a lot less by Pilate and company. Thus, the end is briefly discussed, though it takes a lot of space in the gospels.  The book also argues that Jesus saw himself as a "Son of Man," a rather obscure term at that time that seems to suggest an agent of God to lead the Jews into the Kingdom of God.* A treasonous concept.


To be continued ...  

---

* It is interestingly noted that other Jewish writings somewhat of the same era as the later gospels spoke of such a concept [Jesus himself apparently influenced by its usage in Daniel, a book that was written in the Second Century BCE.] and gave it a more deistic quality. Jesus himself, however, would not see himself as divine, but a divine agent.

Sports Update

NY baseball/football fans might want to look into hockey -- who would have thunk that the presumptive 6/7 win Jets would be the better option? Giants are 0-5 now. The weak division would have led them to be one game behind even at 1-4! Dallas manage to goof again, on the cusp of a possible upset vs. Denver. Upset so far is Bengals over Pats. After a rookie outpitched Verlander last night, Pirates up 2-1 on Cards, Dodgers ready to be up 2-1.

California Solo

This is a good indie about a former Scottish guitarist, now working on an organic farm (good use of setting), who gets into some legal trouble and has to examine his life and choices. Good lead (from The Full Monty etc.) and supporting cast. I like its overall realistic point of view, down to his (non)sexual friendship with a younger struggling actress.

Rev. Joe -- Jesus Bio (Part 1) and Conscience

A couple updates on past posts.

First, I read the first section of Reza Aslan's (isn't that the lion in ... okay) Jesus book. More so than his book on the history of Islam, he has made this a dramatic account, in some cases reading like a historical drama as much as a biography of Jesus. A major point here is that we can best understand Jesus by understanding his times, so this first part is basically a summary of about a hundred years of Palestinian history from the when Rome took control to the the fall of Masada. This brings us to about when the Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written, so it's a good cut-off.

The first section is a very good look* into the period in question, helping you to get the lay of the land. One notable thing was the number of "messiahs" and the like, at least one other one wit the name "Jesus."  Also, we get a look at the "zealots," which the title suggests is where the author puts Jesus (no spoilers, please!).  [One of the apostles is labeled a "zealot," but the book from a quick look only briefly notes him.] We also get a few reminders that the authors of the gospels don't mean to be historians.**  A literal reading of the gospels will run in various problems like is the case for other sacred books, and many believers today manage to be such not doing that.

In fact, the argument is that the readers at times clearly knew even basic "historical" events simply didn't happen. They were provided to send a "truthful" message on the meaning of certain things and/or show scriptures were fulfilled (this seems tricky -- if the messiah is to be from Bethlehem and Jesus was not actually born there, it seems a problem that in effect, sorry this seems the right term, making it up, doesn't quite help).  Also, I think he exaggerates. For instance, Matthew and Luke is written to a gentile audience some time c. 80.  Why would they know about some singular tyranny of Herod (who killed at will at times), especially after so many Jews were wiped out in the 60s war?   If the slaughter of the infants or even some census few would know about (did someone look it up and say, "hey!") didn't quite happen, I doubt many would know 80 years later.

So, it's a good start, and I will say more later. Next, I referenced an article entitled "Disentangling Conscience and Religion," which  fits into an interest of mine.  I finally had a chance to read the darn thing and it was fairly interesting.  The article is not that concerned with providing a specific meaning of 'religion," saying at one point that he would define it broadly. For instance, not rejecting it, he noted:

Theorists put it variously, but many suggest that religion for purposes of religious liberty is a cluster of ideas meant to encompass the variety of beliefs and actions, personal and social, that respond to the experiences of birth, learning, failure, love, death, and the awe of being small in a grand universe.

For instance, I think a person can see a marriage as a "religious" act, even if they don't believe in God. On the show Army Wives (which I stopped watching), a character wanted to have a ceremony for her new child, in effect a baptism, but you know, "not really into the God thing."  But, the even was still "religious," a means to make the daughter a part of the community, to bless her. Anyway, it is unclear where "religion" stops, and given the Ninth Amendment, equal protection and so forth, other things should be protected too. Still, the First Amendment does single out "religion," which has some effect. And, making religion and conscience have some differences also makes the article possible!

The article has some nice asides (e.g., a good one early about Huck Finn, including how he has meaning even beyond what Mark Twain [who is not quite Samuel Clemens!] says it is).  It also supplies a good historical look at how the religion clauses of the First Amendment (focusing on Thomas Paine, since he would be particularly radical) were understood -- "conscience" generally was assumed to be "religious" in nature, and not the open-ended one I just alluded to either.  As the article notes, while not having an originalist bent as such, many now use constitutional terms in a different way as originally intended. 

The article also discusses a bit of religious history (including Paul) to show how "conscience" and "religion" were seen as interrelated but not quite the same. This would include those cases where conscience demands what official religious institutions or standard rules (e.g., rules agaisnt murder) would demand. Such rules are important given the imperfections of conscience resting alone. Likewise, various examples are cited where in law "conscience" is used as a factor, not always matching "religion," such as the rules of when a person can refuse to advocate a position as a lawyer. There is for me a somewhat confusing thumbnail sketch of John Rawls with the overall purpose of showing that as compared to the Founders, who saw "conscience" as just "religious," Rawls doesn't do enough to differentiate conscience from a general moral/religious/conscientious mass. 

Basically, I probably am simplifying, the author sets forth conscience as "the faculty that leads to moral judgments," which would suggest it is an aspect of religion, or something important for the freedom to formulate religious beliefs etc. (see my past discussion), but not the same thing. Also, religion as noted often includes rituals and practices that are themselves not really "moral" though the example of the yarmulke can be said to be if we look to see what is behind the practices. 

Anyway, the "reflection and judgment" involved in conscience is worthy of protection as a fundamental right by itself.  It is essential for personal integrity (a good citation of Socrates and how we always have to live with ourselves, explaining why for many it is worse to do wrong than be wronged, since you cannot get away from yourself). Those without a conscience are sociopaths. It also is a check on governmental power, they (or society) do not have a total monopoly on what is right and wrong.  They will at times have the power of the law, but even then, conscience provides a reminder of how serious this would be, not to be used lightly.

The article ends admitting that it is not trying to answer all the answers as to the specifics of a right to conscience. One important issue would be what happens when conscience runs into the commands of law. The article does say the "challenge is to not mistake the grand cases for the petty," referencing "morally profound issues such as those related to killing." Hannah Arendt (one of those greats I have not really read directly, to be honest) is cited ('"somewhat by contrast" -- not sure about that) as a major influence of his thoughts here and for her "boundary situations" or "special emergencies" are where conscience matters the most.  Nazi Germany was of special interest to her, but over the years, other examples would include slavery, the Vietnam War and so on.

It was an interesting article and helpful for those who at times dismiss religious freedom as all about some fantasy. I think that unfair and unrealistic, but it is even more so when it is seen as part of a wider range of liberty that includes freedom of conscience. The last part about petty v. grand comes up these days regarding contraception mandates. I think, cheapening the liberties at stake in the process, this is missed by some today.  Disagreeing with them, and this annoys me when it is suggested, doesn't mean we disrespect the overall principles. I strongly believe in them.  But, they are too important to lose perspective over the matter.***

---

* There are other books that cover the history of the period, but as a thumbnail sketch for the lay reader, this section is an impressive effort. Bart Ehrman has noted that it is a shame more don't know the full context of their faiths -- particularly the background of the gospels so forth -- and this sort of thing helps a lot. Might be time for another epic film!

** It is my undemanding that Luke might have wanted his account to have some degree of "historical" feel, including the normal practice of inserting speeches (see also, of Pericles) that in effect are a paraphrase of what "should have" happened, since no one was present to take notes for later usage.  This somewhat slippy use of facts is acceptable, but inserting infancy narratives that many seriously think happened? A bit different.

*** This should be understood when addressing the "right" of this or that cited by the Bill of Rights and so on.  Such things can be written in quite absolutist language, but it warrants looking at just what is said. It doesn't say the government can pass no laws about speech or limiting it in any fashion.  etc.  It speaks of "rights" and "freedoms," which in society is part of an overall whole.  I do think when "no" is used, it is pretty strong.  But, it is not absolute, and it is in a certain context. 

Debt Ceiling Trilemma

Prof. Dorf co-wrote an interesting and pretty convincing argument about the choices the President has, but ultimately, it would be better if we didn't have to keep on dealing with this game of chicken. The idea the medical device tax repeal is a "compromise" is a joke -- all this for that? It's not even good policy-wise. ACA helps them, they pay a small tax. Horrible!

Government Shutdown "Unconstitutional" Even If A Political Question

John Dean has a good essay here, examining things beyond the "14A" options debate. That section speaks of things authorized by "law" that "shall not be questioned," but then I read about "wish lists" and such other places. Unfortunately, such bad analysis is not just made by anonymous online comments. This is why any "deal" is so much of a risk, encourages them.

Reza Aslan's Jesus bio

In the introduction, he speaks of "works attributed to but not written by a specific author" and says "by no means" should this be seen as a fraud. Bart Ehrman (who along with Elaine Pagels and Karen Armstrong is not listed in the bibliography) differs. Book looks interesting, but it seems "grain of salt" will be appropriate. Some time back, read a bio of Jesus (and Paul) by the historian Michael Grant. So, he is on paved ground here.

Various

Conservative blogs are harping on closing of private run places in certain cases, for some reason (see "Me" -- not me) not doing much to fully examine the question. Meanwhile, the "not 100% pure" police is on my case again here. I used a qualifier ('some' respect), but yet again, skipped over. Meanwhile, two more lame playoff games, the second 4-0 so far.

ABC: Police Protecting Capitol Are Unpaid Due To Shutdown

The events are unreal, this is just ... no comment.

Love, Dishonor, Marry, Die, Cherish, Perish

I am not familiar with the author (RIP), but this final work of interconnected stories via rhyme is overall quite witty and powerful.  Neat cover too.

Rays and Pirates (Go Pirates!) Advance

Game 163 and the two one game playoffs seemed to be repeats — one team had a stud starter (David Price the stud-est), had an ability to add on runs/hit home runs while the other made enough mistakes, didn’t hit and their starter didn’t go that long.

Government Shutdown Watch

The latest episode of Good Luck Charlie was one of the better ones of late and used the Internet minister theme. Again, the only to point local legal precedent rejects giving such people the right to officiate weddings, at least in 3/5 of NYC and certain surrounding areas. Bronx and Manhattan not covered by the appeal. Meanwhile, could not obtain the specific government webpage of a person mentioned in a recent discussion (with a last name nearly like mine) because of the partial shutdown. Joining the pain.

Sports Update

Three teams had to keep on winning late thanks to earlier sketchy play (especially the Texans, who fell apart again late). David Price's complete game effort dominated the Rangers. While they wait for the Indians, Reds/Pirates play again (ended the season playing each other). NY Giants haven't just lost all four games, but were was plummeted each time.

Willing Executioners?

A federal judge notes the "great harm to other human beings by faithfully executing the extraordinarily harsh national criminal laws," which is good to keep in mind. That is what those who execute and interpret the law do -- they carry out policy choices of others. They have some discretion, more than some claim, but only so much.

Marshall Lee Gore Executed

The First Monday start of the new Supreme Court term is late this year, but the "long conference" led to orders, notable denial being a death penalty case. After a few more boilerplate orders, the end came, after a slight delay because of political reasons. This really upset some, and it was crass, but really, in the scheme of things, wasn't overall upset.

A Certain October

A quick read for the beginning of the month involves a teenager girl dealing with tragedy and just being a teenager, which is tricky in itself. Also, looked at a book by a Lincoln scholar meant for young readers/fans of the film, but also might work well for adults who are not very good readers. Many books for teens these days are quite mature, after all.