But then, we all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

I wrote this in MSWord - I have no idea why it all ended up in caps, but I'm not going to bother trying to find out.

My son sent me the following press release: “Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'”, and asked, “Is this legit?”

CAVEAT: I have not read the book (yet?), nor have I gone and looked at reviews. These are just rambling, though serious, thoughts.

I love this stuff, so I read the press release and went to the website, Covert Messiah. On the face of it, it is not proof, nor a new discovery. It seems that it is a re-reading/reinterpretation of texts that we already have. The first thing that strikes me is that, not only would the Romans have had to invent the gospels (& all 4 NT stories are rather different - particularly the Gospel of John & some of the gnostic gospels), but, potentially, they would have also had to write all of the letters of Paul, the pseudo-Pauline letters, the letter to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John – or at least of portion of them. Given the different tones and the different theologies in all of these texts, I would be extremely hesitant to think that this could be the case. "We invented Jesus Christ" is called an "ancient confession". Unless Atwill has found extremely new documentation that has been unknown for 2,000 years (not impossible but ...), then it is doubtful. And we would have all heard about by now, I should think.

Josephus' use of the prophetic mode is not unusual - this is the mode of the prophets of Israel - Jesus was most likely a prophet type. Furthermore, if the Romans had wanted to create a peaceful Messiah, then why are there texts in the New Testament that clearly have Jesus stating that "he comes to bring not peace but a sword" and he comes to turn “brother against brother” and the mini apocalypse in Mark? While all of these are to some extent controversial in current biblical scholarship, the rash inconsistencies do not augur well for someone who is trying to argue that beginnings of Christianity were created by some Roman plot to create a “peaceful” Messiah for the Jews.

Then again, maybe the Jews were just too smart for the Romans and saw through the subterfuge. This led, of course, to 2,000 years of attempted genocide culminating in the holocaust. Unintended consequences at its worst!

There have always been historians and theorists who have argued that Jesus probably didn't exist. Read Feuerbach or Schweitzer. There is also the argument made that Paul was the founder of Christianity and that he made Jesus up and created the entire story.The author of this particular theory has written with Robert Eisenman, who is controversial in his own right. He thinks that the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Jesus, among other things. This would actually then contradict what Atwill is saying, unless he wants to argue that the Romans wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.

Furthermore, if Atwill argues that Josephus was part of the conspiracy, then why isn't there more about Jesus in Josephus’ writings? That would be more logical. Josephus actually writes about James, Jesus brother, who headed up the Jerusalem community after Jesus' death. Just asking!

I suspect that while this is might make for fun reading perhaps, it would be unlikely to actually be the case. Unless, of course, as I wrote earlier, they have found actual undisputed documentation (primary sources) that says "we (the Romans, of course) did it". And since this doesn't seem to be the case, then I would put it really low on the probability scale. On the other hand, if it is the case, then obviously, it didn't work because there were at least two major Jewish revolts in the 2nd century, after which the true diaspora began.

In many ways, I suspect that Schoenfeld's The Passover Plot has more legs than Covert Messiah.

I would to read (not buy) the book. Maybe my son will get it for me as a Xmas present :-).

Something else I wrote about Dawkins - just found it :-)

Day 3

Today I am going to write about the one thing that bothers me about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I loved the book but if he needs to truly argue that religion is child abuse, then he cannot so blithely dismiss the impact of sexual abuse on children raised in Christian environments.

The absolute power of the Christian god is embedded in Christian children from their birth. Whatever that particular god structure is, it is consistently reinforced by their parents, their church communities and sometimes their school systems.

Dawkins wouldn't disagree with this, but when he uses an example of a one time experience of sexual assault by a priest (described as "yukky" by the woman recounting it) to point out that psychological damage is far more damaging, he is does a massive disservice not only to those abused in a Christian context but, of all things, to his own argument that religion is child abuse. Dawkins just doesn't really get it when it comes to the impact of sexual abuse of children in a religious context. Perhaps he needs to see Deliver Us From Evil (http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php). Or perhaps he needs to read Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal by David France. He migh then get some idea, albeit secondhand of just what kind of damage the combination of religion and sexual abuse can cause.

There are two possible reasons for his dismissal. The first is that that it never really happened to him and he is therefore making a false generalization from his own experience and people who have had "minimal" experience of sexual abuse (these do exist - and it is a far cry from what I and millions of other children were subjected to). He quite clearly does not know anyone who has been devastated by the sexual abuse which includes all of the other forms of abuse that can knowingly be inflicted on children. The second possibility is that perhaps it did happen to him and he has never had to look at it. In other words, he has successfully managed to live a life without running into a situation that will cause him to have flashback or emotional crisis.

So Satisfying

The second last episode of Ray Donovan and Ray killed the priest.

I'm with Bunchie(y?): "I'm glad you did it, I didn't think I would be, but I am."

It was a brilliant episode. Just watched the last 10 minutes again. Kudos to the writer Ron Nyswaner, the director Daniel Minahan & the creator Ann Biderman. Liev Schreiber is brilliant as always.

I will be writing about the show as a whole when I have watched the last episode. After reading a few critics, I think that there is a need to thoroughly digest and expound upon it. It just rings true on many levels for me.

So much of what I have commented on in earlier posts are reflected in this story line. See, for example, They Still Call Him "Father". The Power of the Belief System or Anger, Anger, and Rage. They both contain aspects of impact/response that make me feel very comfortable watching this show.

I will be watching the last episode shortly & will hope that it is a fitting end to the first season!

Poor, poor Richard - well there goes his credibility

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

So Dawkins is not the great analytical thinker that he wants us and everyone around him to believe.

Has he never ever questioned by he is so evangelical about the horrors of "the God Delusion" as he calls it?

Obviously not. Do do so would take him back to "what didn;t really hurt him at all".

The fact that he is now focusing on it is amazing - he obviously can't let it go - a little mild form of PSTD, Richard?

Here is my post from another blog & and an earlier blog post on Dawkins - the first time he "admitted" that he had been abused sexually as a child at school.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009

What Dawkins Doesn't Understand

Today I am going to write about the one thing that bothers me about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I loved the book but if he needs to truly argue that religion is child abuse, then he cannot so blithely dismiss the impact of sexual abuse on children raised in Christian environments.

The absolute power of the Christian god is embedded in Christian children from their birth. Whatever that particular god structure is, it is consistently reinforced by their parents, their church communities and sometimes their school systems.

Dawkins wouldn't disagree with this, but when he uses an example of a one time experience of sexual assault by a priest (described as "yukky" by the woman recounting it) to point out that psychological damage is far more damaging, he is does a massive disservice not only to those abused in a Christian context but, of all things, to his own argument that religion is child abuse. Dawkins just doesn't really get it when it comes to the impact of sexual abuse of children in a religious context. Perhaps he needs to see Deliver Us From Evil (http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php). Or perhaps he needs to read Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal by David France. He migh then get some idea, albeit secondhand of just what kind of damage the combination of religion and sexual abuse can cause.

There are two possible reasons for his dismissal. The first is that that it never really happened to him and he is therefore making a false generalization from his own experience and people who have had "minimal" experience of sexual abuse (these do exist - and it is a far cry from what I and millions of other children were subjected to). He quite clearly does not know anyone who has been devastated by the sexual abuse which includes all of the other forms of abuse that can knowingly be inflicted on children. The second possibility is that perhaps it did happen to him and he has never had to look at it. In other words, he has successfully managed to live a life without running into a situation that will cause him to have flashback or emotional crisis.

but then again I was right about limbo!!

Direct from the Vatican site - the latest (I think) on limbo:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

Get your indulgences on Twitter - at least, they're free!

It boggles my mind, but purgatory still exists. I don't know why I thought it was gone & why I am surprised,but then maybe I have just been reading the wrong theologians.

Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part. Had to send a note to my students :-). Maybe it's lack of sleep - who knows - but here is the relevant info:

Keeping up with the times: Indulgences through Twitter

Vatican offers 'time off purgatory' to followers of Pope Francis tweets

Papal court handling pardons for sins says contrite Catholics may win 'indulgences' by following World Youth Day on Twitter

The Roman Catholic Catechism on Purgatory from the Vatican's official site:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 12
"I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING"
1030-1032

II. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.⁶⁰⁶ The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:⁶⁰⁷

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.⁶⁰⁸

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."⁶⁰⁹ From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.⁶¹⁰ The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.⁶¹¹

Just something to stick on the inside cover of Bibles

Remember it should be rated XXX

:-)

Ray Donovan: In Canada, it's on The Movie Network

And here is the link:

http://www.themovienetwork.ca/series/raydonovan

I have looked at a couple of reviews and some of the official website material. There will be a lot to write about. I am not sure that some of the reviewers/bloggers are actually understanding the characters. However, that is to be expected.

One blogger seems to think that the show is a bit "fantastical" in that no one could get away with what he does. While the stars' cases are handled quickly, I might suggest that people go and read up on Pellicano and then decide whether someone could "get away" with being like Ray. 

According to Wikipedia, "Pellicano is known to have represented Anthony "the Ant" Spilotro, the Chicago mobster charged with monitoring the Las Vegas casino "skim" for the Chicago mob. Gustave Reininger, the co-creator of NBC's acclaimed television drama Crime Story, was served both a subpoena and a warning from Spilotro through Pellicano.^{[23][24][25][26][27][28][29].  "}

Note: Crime Story was on TV from 1986-1988. If anyone is interested, here is the link to the Vanity Fair article, "The Pellicano Brief". It seems Pellicano's rise to fame started in 1977. Took them until 2006 to indict him - rather a long run and far from fantastical.

The writing in Ray Donovan is solid - may not be pleasant but it promises to be very interesting.

Ray Donovan: Showtime, Sunday nights at 10

Finally, a series about the longterm negative impacts of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

See it on Showtime - in the States, the first episode is on-line at  http://www.sho.com/sho/ray-donovan/home

I don't know if it will be on Netflicks - or other carriers, but a full season has already been shot.

I was excited in the first 15 minutes and blown away by the end of it. I had to sit on my hands to keep myself from calling people late at night to tell them to find some way to watch it.


I assume that the inspiration for the story's setting was Anthony Pellicano, private investigator to the stars. See the LA Times for stories about his trial.

We have two brothers (of 4) that we know were sexually abused by a priest (whom their father kills when he gets out of jail). The one is an addict (in & out of rehab) who has had a settlement - & is still drinking etc. - & Ray Donovan - although he has apparently never told anyone - & suffers from flashbacks. There is also a sister who was an addict and committed suicide. All of this is the underbelly of the lives of Ray Donovan and his family.

Just a note: the level of violence in the show is limited but extreme.

Looking forward to tonight's episode & will probably write reviews of the show at some point in the future - probably when it has aired all of the first season.

As an aside, it is wonderful to see Liev Schreiber, and Jon Voigt is suitably creepy as Ray's father. There was a wonderful cameo (maybe he will be on again, fingers crossed) by Elliot Gould as Ray's boss and mentor.

No Advertising on This Blog

This is not a site where you can make comments and then advertise your own blog or any other thing.

The only time that I allow other blogs to be mentioned in comments is if they bear some relevance to the topic.

The sole exception is when I have posted music videos from YouTube that come with their own advertising segments - there is nothing that I can do about them.

Relevant previous blog: http://www.sheilaredmond.com/search?q=ads

Can't find the other one right now - will add a comment later.

I really do need to spend a couple of days and label all the blogs properly - I even printed out all the blogs in chronological order to facilitate that. Other things got in the way.

Hope everyone has a good summer.

Just thought I'd share another Slacktivist blog!

How patriarchy ‘calls into question the validity’ of a sacrament

I am extremely busy these days and moving my world around - it will probably be a while before I blog again on issues that the blog has focused on, but I'll drop by every now and then, when something gets brought to my attention.