Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sad
Last night around 6pm a man jumped in front of a BART train at Powell Station. What a sad event. I also feel sorry for all the other people who had to stand and watch. And the BART driver. And the train passengers who could apparently feel it. I am also eternally grateful that I decided to walk to Powell Street after work at 5:50 and did not take a train. There are only a few trains that go through there... Really sad though.
Jesus Barabbas
For anyone who has ever wondered about the origins of Anti-Semitism, one must at least go back as far as, if not much further than, the composition of the Bible. The figure of Barabbas, depicted in different places as thief, murder or most recently, terrorist is important to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was brought before a group of people, the identity of which is the key, and was placed next to the figure of Barabbas, or more completely, Yeshua bar-Abbas. Pontius Pilate gave the crowd the choice of setting either Barabbas or Jesus free and they picked Barabbas. Jesus was crucified.
The identity of the crowd is disputed. The word used to describe it is "masses", "people" or sometimes "Jews". This is the origin of the seemingly specious claim that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Obviously the Romans did the actual killing, but the responsibility was often placed on Jews because they chose to free Barabbas and not Jesus. This was used by Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ" and is one of the reasons many see the film as anti-Semitic.
The story becomes much more interesting when you research the identity of Barabbas, or Yeshua bar-Abbas. He was born in the city of Galilee between 7BCE (BC) and 7CE (AD). Jesus was born in Nazareth between 8BCE and 2BCE. Galilee is another name for Nazareth. Yeshua is the actual Hebrew name of Jesus. The years overlap. Finally "bar" means "son of" and "Abba" is "father". When Jesus Christ prayed to God, he called God "Abba". So, one could translate "Barabbas" as "Son of God". The "s" on the end of "Abbas" is an ending for the possessive or genitive case.
This means that Jesus Barabbas) Son of God the Father was born in Nazareth in 7BCE-7CE and was crucified next to Jesus Christ, Son of God, who was born in Nazareth btw. 8-2BCE. This seems too large a coincidence to ignore. There was likely only one person crucified and the choice offered by Pontius Pilate is different than it seems.
Jesus Christ was seen by his adversaries as in insurrectionist against the Roman Empire. He was crucified as a revolutionary.
The story goes like this. The two are brought before the crowd and Pontius Pilate asks which one should be saved. Let's say for the sake of argument that the crowd was actually mostly Jewish. The Jews yell out "Save Barabbas!" or translated "Save the Son of the Father". The Romas decided to crucify Jesus. Why the second figure? The possibilities here are plentiful. One is that it was a common parable in stories from the time to free one person while lynching another. Another is that it was a misinterpretation in translation or relating the story over time. The third is that it was added in by Paul of Tsaurus around 310. This is the most interesting account. The Christian religion was legalized in the Roman Empire to Emperor Constantine between 310 and 315. The Romans did not want to be seen as the murderers of Jesus, so Paul shifted the blame onto the adversaries of the Romans, the Jews. This could have been done in order to allow for its legalization. The question would then be, were there Jews there calling for Jesus's freedom, calling him Yeshua bar-Abbas, but not referring to someone else.... OR, were there no Jews at all, and the Jews and the second figure were fabricated in the story?
This assumes a lot. There are other ideas. One is that early Christians were persecuted by Jews and therefore sought revenge by putting anti-Semitic statements in the Bible, using the word "Jews", when it shouldn't have been there, or fabricating the whole aspect of the second figure (same as above, only it was not done to appease the Romans, but rather to propagandize Anti-Semitism). Or that anti-Semitism largely predates this and this was one in a long line of attacks on Jews through propaganda.
Either way, assuming that it would be difficult for a Roman convert to accept that his own people murdered the only Son of God, thus inflaming anti-Semitism, or assuming that an anti-Semitic attitude was placed in the Bible to inflame hatred, it would seem quite interesting for the history of anti-Semitism.
The final, most controversial interpretation, is that Jesus was actually somewhat violent. That he was more of the wrathful righteous one than the peaceful righteous one. This would claim that Pontius Pilate said, "Should we kill this violent terrorist?" and the Jews responded with, "No, please save him, he's the Son of God!" The result is the same as the first one above, that the idea that someone was actually freed was either an intentional fabrication, a parable, a metaphor or a mistake.
Anyway you see it, it's pretty interesting stuff. In the end, it seems that in the original story there was likely only the one figure of Jesus, either peaceful or violent and that over time the story was altered, either mistakenly due to retelling, or intentionally in order to either to shift the blame away from the Romans, to satisfy the propaganda needs of anti-Semites, or both. Interesting stuff, huh?
The identity of the crowd is disputed. The word used to describe it is "masses", "people" or sometimes "Jews". This is the origin of the seemingly specious claim that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Obviously the Romans did the actual killing, but the responsibility was often placed on Jews because they chose to free Barabbas and not Jesus. This was used by Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ" and is one of the reasons many see the film as anti-Semitic.
The story becomes much more interesting when you research the identity of Barabbas, or Yeshua bar-Abbas. He was born in the city of Galilee between 7BCE (BC) and 7CE (AD). Jesus was born in Nazareth between 8BCE and 2BCE. Galilee is another name for Nazareth. Yeshua is the actual Hebrew name of Jesus. The years overlap. Finally "bar" means "son of" and "Abba" is "father". When Jesus Christ prayed to God, he called God "Abba". So, one could translate "Barabbas" as "Son of God". The "s" on the end of "Abbas" is an ending for the possessive or genitive case.
This means that Jesus Barabbas) Son of God the Father was born in Nazareth in 7BCE-7CE and was crucified next to Jesus Christ, Son of God, who was born in Nazareth btw. 8-2BCE. This seems too large a coincidence to ignore. There was likely only one person crucified and the choice offered by Pontius Pilate is different than it seems.
Jesus Christ was seen by his adversaries as in insurrectionist against the Roman Empire. He was crucified as a revolutionary.
The story goes like this. The two are brought before the crowd and Pontius Pilate asks which one should be saved. Let's say for the sake of argument that the crowd was actually mostly Jewish. The Jews yell out "Save Barabbas!" or translated "Save the Son of the Father". The Romas decided to crucify Jesus. Why the second figure? The possibilities here are plentiful. One is that it was a common parable in stories from the time to free one person while lynching another. Another is that it was a misinterpretation in translation or relating the story over time. The third is that it was added in by Paul of Tsaurus around 310. This is the most interesting account. The Christian religion was legalized in the Roman Empire to Emperor Constantine between 310 and 315. The Romans did not want to be seen as the murderers of Jesus, so Paul shifted the blame onto the adversaries of the Romans, the Jews. This could have been done in order to allow for its legalization. The question would then be, were there Jews there calling for Jesus's freedom, calling him Yeshua bar-Abbas, but not referring to someone else.... OR, were there no Jews at all, and the Jews and the second figure were fabricated in the story?
This assumes a lot. There are other ideas. One is that early Christians were persecuted by Jews and therefore sought revenge by putting anti-Semitic statements in the Bible, using the word "Jews", when it shouldn't have been there, or fabricating the whole aspect of the second figure (same as above, only it was not done to appease the Romans, but rather to propagandize Anti-Semitism). Or that anti-Semitism largely predates this and this was one in a long line of attacks on Jews through propaganda.
Either way, assuming that it would be difficult for a Roman convert to accept that his own people murdered the only Son of God, thus inflaming anti-Semitism, or assuming that an anti-Semitic attitude was placed in the Bible to inflame hatred, it would seem quite interesting for the history of anti-Semitism.
The final, most controversial interpretation, is that Jesus was actually somewhat violent. That he was more of the wrathful righteous one than the peaceful righteous one. This would claim that Pontius Pilate said, "Should we kill this violent terrorist?" and the Jews responded with, "No, please save him, he's the Son of God!" The result is the same as the first one above, that the idea that someone was actually freed was either an intentional fabrication, a parable, a metaphor or a mistake.
Anyway you see it, it's pretty interesting stuff. In the end, it seems that in the original story there was likely only the one figure of Jesus, either peaceful or violent and that over time the story was altered, either mistakenly due to retelling, or intentionally in order to either to shift the blame away from the Romans, to satisfy the propaganda needs of anti-Semites, or both. Interesting stuff, huh?
Monday, October 29, 2007
GREs and Obama
I did quite well on the GREs. At least 2 out of the 3 sections. The third section is theoretically being graded as we speak and I will know in the next 2 weeks. Now, I'm writing my essays.
Just when I'm sure I can vote for someone in the primaries I like, Obama, he goes and does a stupid stupid thing. He puts an openly homophobic singer on stage at his gospel tour concert and does nothing to speak against the man's message. First of all, he should not be having a gospel tour for crying out loud. The Democrats should not try to take over the religious nut vote from the Republicans. They should let it realize it has no party and let it mire in obscurity. Secondly, the singer once said on the 700 Club that gay people kill children and he openly propagates the ridiculous falsehood that homosexuality is a choice. He said so at the Obama event.
Lest you think I'm being intolerant (the last argument of the truly intolerant), imagine a white preacher who defames black people as sinners. Or Hitler speaking against Jews. Or a Minuteman trashing Latinos. Or a Neo-Nazi German bashing Turks. Or a Wahabi bringing down women. Should an American politician put one of them on stage and allow them to perform and espouse their hatred? Good job, Obama, you stupid f@$k. You just lost my vote. Back to Edwards?
Just when I'm sure I can vote for someone in the primaries I like, Obama, he goes and does a stupid stupid thing. He puts an openly homophobic singer on stage at his gospel tour concert and does nothing to speak against the man's message. First of all, he should not be having a gospel tour for crying out loud. The Democrats should not try to take over the religious nut vote from the Republicans. They should let it realize it has no party and let it mire in obscurity. Secondly, the singer once said on the 700 Club that gay people kill children and he openly propagates the ridiculous falsehood that homosexuality is a choice. He said so at the Obama event.
Lest you think I'm being intolerant (the last argument of the truly intolerant), imagine a white preacher who defames black people as sinners. Or Hitler speaking against Jews. Or a Minuteman trashing Latinos. Or a Neo-Nazi German bashing Turks. Or a Wahabi bringing down women. Should an American politician put one of them on stage and allow them to perform and espouse their hatred? Good job, Obama, you stupid f@$k. You just lost my vote. Back to Edwards?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson, Carter and now... GORE
Contratulations on your receipt of the Nobel Peace Price! You are a true (American) hero.
Dear me, to think what was, then wasn't, and what should've/could've been.
Current music: Radiohead - Morning Bell (Amnesiac)
Dear me, to think what was, then wasn't, and what should've/could've been.
Current music: Radiohead - Morning Bell (Amnesiac)
Friday, October 05, 2007
The Blue Angels
Every year on the weekend after my birthday, the Blue Angels fly their massive jets over our city for 4 looooooooong days. I have only lived here for the past year, but I remember vividly enjoying some bluegrass in the park when all of a sudden this ridiculous display of military machismo totally stopped the pleasant song. Yesterday, I felt the building shake and it was frightening. They are flying directly over our little town and doing tricks. Tomorrow, they will disrupt my visit to the Bluegrass Festival again.
People in favor of them say "How much fuel is wasted on our freeways everyday?", "I don't like the Folsom Street Fair (the leather festival), but I put up with it, why can't you put up with this", "Commercial airliners are more dangerous." Let me clearly respond. Military displays of power do not allow people to travel, visit their friends and families and conduct business which develops our economy, while commercial airliners do. We also aren't trading commercial airliners for Blue Angels, so the Blue Angels are merely adding an unnecessary danger. The same argument can go for cars. Cars will still be there, doing many functional things, while the Blue Angels are wasting massive amounts of fuel. Cars are largely USING it, not WASTING it. Lastly, the Blue Angels disrupt my daily life and I have no say. If you don't like the Folsom Street Fair, walk one block in the other direction and continue on your bigoted way. I can't escape these jets, something I politically (and without bigotry) oppose without leaving the city. They are wasting fuel, my tax money and my patience. They are wowing young people into thinking that flying a small fighter jet is cool. It never was and never will be. It might be necessary in certain situations, but not non, when our government is bombing innocent people in poor countries. Lastly, the sound is deafening and frightening. I applaud the progressive members (something I almost never do) of the board of supervisors for opposing this ridiculous self-gratification for ignorant war-mongers.
STAY THE HELL OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO, BLUE ANGELS!!!!
People in favor of them say "How much fuel is wasted on our freeways everyday?", "I don't like the Folsom Street Fair (the leather festival), but I put up with it, why can't you put up with this", "Commercial airliners are more dangerous." Let me clearly respond. Military displays of power do not allow people to travel, visit their friends and families and conduct business which develops our economy, while commercial airliners do. We also aren't trading commercial airliners for Blue Angels, so the Blue Angels are merely adding an unnecessary danger. The same argument can go for cars. Cars will still be there, doing many functional things, while the Blue Angels are wasting massive amounts of fuel. Cars are largely USING it, not WASTING it. Lastly, the Blue Angels disrupt my daily life and I have no say. If you don't like the Folsom Street Fair, walk one block in the other direction and continue on your bigoted way. I can't escape these jets, something I politically (and without bigotry) oppose without leaving the city. They are wasting fuel, my tax money and my patience. They are wowing young people into thinking that flying a small fighter jet is cool. It never was and never will be. It might be necessary in certain situations, but not non, when our government is bombing innocent people in poor countries. Lastly, the sound is deafening and frightening. I applaud the progressive members (something I almost never do) of the board of supervisors for opposing this ridiculous self-gratification for ignorant war-mongers.
STAY THE HELL OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO, BLUE ANGELS!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)