Fox-ite Dummy Lauren Green Gets Schooled by Reza Aslan

Lauren Green may well be a charming lady, and perhaps educated in some areas for which she might aspire to be a competent interviewer. But alas, religious history and textual analysis is not one of them - as she learned when confronting author and religious scholar Reza Aslan a few days ago. (According to Buzzfeed, it "was the most embarrassing interview FOX has ever done") After watching clips from Chris Hayes' show last night, I believe it.

Her first question:

"You're a Muslim so why did you write a book about the Founder of Christianity?"

is dumbo out of the block, and thus Aslan began his tutorial for her, as if she were a kindergartener.

He noted being a "scholar of religion with four degrees, including the New Testament with fluency in Biblical Greek- and studied the origins of Christianity for two decades"

Aslan added that he just happened to be a Muslim, but the Fox dope-ite couldn't or wouldn't let it go, asking an even dumber question:

"It still begs the question, why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?"

But clearly she doesn't grasp what the fallacy of begging the question means, i.e. it  is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." In other words, it is actually Ms. Green who was doing the question begging by assuming because Aslan is Muslim he can't be a competent scholar of Christianity or Yeshua.  Thus, her de facto proposition, that Aslan is incompetent to do research into Jesus because of being Muslim, requires proof that she doesn't provide but which charge she expects Aslan to defend! She thereby foists the burden of question "begging" onto Aslan for showing WHY he is qualified to do a scholarly study of Yeshua.

Aslan, looking as if trying to take pity on a regressive, backward toddler, replied:

"Because it's my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament, That is what I do for a living. I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religion .  This isn't a 'Muslim opinion'. I'm not sure what my faith happens to do with my twenty years of academic study of the New Testament. I do think perhaps it's a little bit strange that instead of debating the arguments of the book we are debating the rights of the scholar to actually write it. My job as a scholar of religions is to write about religions."

But you see, Prof. Aslan, in Dumbo-ville  'Murica, this is not seen as irony. It happens all the time.  But to reinforce this, Green digs herself in deeper approaching moron territory:

"You're quoting yourself as a scholar. I have interviewed scholars who have written books on the resurrection, on the real Jesus, and looking at the same information that you're saying but which is somehow different from theirs, is really not being honest here."

Aslan tried to be empathetic at this point, what else can you be with a recalcitrant dummy masquerading as a prime time network interviewer? He replied:

"M'am, my information is not different from the others at all. It sounds like you haven't actually read my book to see what I've said about the resurrection, or about Jesus or about his claims. I think you might be surprised in what I say."

Ouch!  The book that's elicited such consternation from the reality-challenged is
"Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth."

The book excavates what can really be known about Jesus the person and the context in which he lived. Aslan feels passionate about why that kind of knowledge is so important, as he noted in a recent salon.com interview:

"Unless you believe that Jesus lived in some kind of a cultural and political vacuum, that the context of the world in which he lived played no role in his actions or his motivations, then you have to take seriously that he lived in a specific time and place and the things that he said were directed to a specific audience in one of the most tumultuous periods of the history of the Holy Land."

Earlier, actually a week ago,  in another appearance on "Morning Joe", Aslan  noted a typical American tendency to think of Jesus as "some kind of pacifist, a celestial spirit in the world in which he lived",  which is completely at odds from the picture which emerges from the historical study of him.  Aslan noted how Yeshua likely lived in the most tumultuous era for the Holy Land ever known, and also took on the hitherto greatest Empire the world had ever known.

Because he took on that Empire, he was executed as a state criminal. Aslan emphasized that he "was a deeply political figure".

At this point, guest Steve Rattner blurted out:  "So, he was a Terrorist?"

Aslan replied: "No. I mean a terrorist is someone who takes up arms against citizens. There were certainly a lot of Jewish terrorists in 1st century Palestine but he himself wasn't one of those. He was a nationalist revolutionary."

At that point, I immediately thought of the late Hugo Chavez who the U.S. Neoliberal media and associated imps  tried to paint as the biggest villain since Stalin. But as I noted, Chavez walked the walk doing far more to help his downtrodden countrymen than Obama has done for ours (even now Obama's WH  is conducting secret talks with the Repukes on a "Grand Bargain" to  cut Medicare - according to Daily Kos).

It was funny when Morning Joe himself tried to interject his own biblical knowledge by asserting Yeshua had to be a pacifist since he said "turn the other cheek" among other statements. But Aslan responded he also said: "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword.." and also the same man who said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Aslan followed up, noting that just by his saying the words, "I am the Messiah" he was committing a treasonable offense, since the imputation was that the kingdom of God would replace the kingdom of Caesar, i.e. the Romans. Thus, he wasn't killed for his spiritual teachings but his political actions.

Aslan, like Oxford scholar Geza Vermes before him ('The Authentic Gospel of Jesus') noted that crucifixion was a punishment  "reserved solely for crimes against the state".

Scarborough tried to pooh pooh this by asserting the Romans were "ambivalent at best when you read about the final week of Jesus' life".

But Aslan slapped that down in concert with many other true scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, noting: "that's not correct either". Scarborough snarked: "So what is it then, a fable?" and Aslan replied (correctly according to textual analysis):

"Never happened! It's an absolute fable. What you have to understand is the very first words written about Jesus in the gospels were written after the Jewish revolt, after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the very movement which Jesus embodied led to the insurrection against the Roman Empire, And the words were written in Greek, not in Hebrew, not in Aramaic - the language of the Jews. They were written specifically for a Roman audience at a time when Judaism had become pariah".

He emphasized:

"If that's the case, if you're writing for a Roman audience and not a Jewish audience then you have to do two things: one, you have to make him just a little bit less Jewish and a little bit less revolutionary and two, you have to remove all blame for his death from Rome.."

Pilate himself was no ambivalent wuss, but a "brutal, bloodthirsty man who sent his troops out onto the streets to slaughter Jews on the slightest pretext".

Scarborough interrupted at this point, yelping as if bitten by a large red ant on the butt: "S-so, so, so ....y-y-you're suggesting...that basically the New Testament is fiction."

Aslan replied coolly and calmly as with the Fox moron:

"No, what I'm saying is the New Testament is myth and myth isn't fiction. You have to understand that what we differentiate between facts and truth is a differentiation the ancient mind would have no conception of.  For them what was important wasn't the actual facts of the event - they wouldn't even know what you're talking about. For them the importance was the truth. So what they wanted to do was create a narrative of Jesus that revealed the truth that they wanted to reveal about him,"

One of the truths the writers wanted to reveal is that it wasn't Rome's fault but the Jews. At which point Scarborough began a prolonged, know-nothing interruption in which he tried to portray himself on an equal scholastic footing as Aslan, but he fell flat. Anyone who knew anything of textual analysis and its role in rendering the NT a myth would peg Joe as at least as big a moron as Lauren Green.

The bottom line in all this is too many religious Americans can't handle the truth: that their "good Book"  is not based on facts or real history, but ancient myths re-told in a certain context. Or s Reza Aslan put it in his salon.com interview:

"The historical Jesus: he was an illiterate, day laborer, peasant from the country side of Galilee who hung around with the most dispossessed, poor, weak, outcasts of his society -- people whom the temple rejected".

In  other words, exactly the fitting picture of the "Augustan Hippie" that scholar John Dominic Crossan portrayed in his masterful work: 'The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant'.

Will fundies and the Christian Right reject this? Of course! But these are the same twits who reject Darwinian evolution and claim the Earth is 6, 000 years old!

Is "Tebow-mania" Getting Out of Control?

The report on page two of The Denver Post Sports section was disconcerting to say the least. Under the header, 'Message Delivered in Silence', the article noted that "the most widely searched for item for most of Sunday night on Google was 'John: 3:16". This is one of the most often cited verses by bible bangers which purportedly holds the key to human "salvation" based on the known fiction (at least to most of us) of a redeemer's "expiation". That is, an ultra-perfect ("divine") being is alleged to die for the "sins" of gnarly humans, thereby ensuring them the chance to get to the promised land if they only....believe.

Those who see symbols and meaning in everything, were also apparently mesmerized by the fact Tebow compiled 316 passing yards.

Look! See the critical message!

316 yards!

John 3: 16!

This, of course, has also been Tebow's trademark, having worn it regularly stenciled into his eye black when he played at the University of Florida. (Thankfully the NFL prohibits such blatant faith displays!)

I will wager, however, that not one of those who googled Tim's trademark learned anything really new and in particular that the famous verse is a bogus quotation. Most biblical experts, mainly of the Jesus seminar, tend to agree it was a later insertion. It was deliberately intended to underscore Christianity's separate existence as a religion in its own right, at a time when the Sol Invictus "Sun God"- Mithra cult still reigned in much of the Roman Empire. Nor was this sort of later insertion unusual.

The Roman Catholic historian Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, in his monograph ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, notes (page 17):

“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”

In his monograph he goes on to point out that hundreds of later insertions were willy-nilly made to text of the New Testament at certain points (John 3: 16 being one of them) to further push and promote the notion of salvation and especially linking belief to that cherished but delusional state. Thus we see "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life".

Underscoring the Rev. Bokenkotter's premise of trying to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah or God. But it all rests on a house of cards. Trick cards to fool the gullible, like Tim Tebow and his irrational followers.

Hebrew scholar Geza Vermes' in his The Authentic Gospel of Jesus probably provides the most scholarly and exegetically-rigorous reasons for why these verses for "belief in a Messiah" and links to "life everlasting" are specious.

For example, Vermes shows from his textual analysis, that the syncretic later additions and embellishments to the basic initial writings were probably a result of increasing skepticism and boredom among disillusioned Christians (Vermes, p. 384, ‘Towards the Authentic Gospel’) After all, over a century had passed since the days of Jesus and the church- which had NO role to play during his life- had by then become institutionalized. It thus had become an entity to serve no other purpose than to perpetuate the teaching of Jesus in an indefinitely postponed “Parousia”.

This in turn, led to the impetus to add to, further embellish and reinforce the Savior –Redeemer myth. The easiest way to do so was to copy legendary tales from earlier pagan sources and insert them into later translations. Or, to simply conjure up words that would lend themselves to the expiation theme and "ultimate sacrifice". This mightily helped church leaders in their constant exhortations to the faithful to not lose sight of the goal.

Thus, there came new and revised parables and more “Son of God” sayings to "encourage the need for quiet optimism and hopefulness, and to simplify a formulaic salvation". E.g. “John 3:5 and 3:16 are perfect examples of later syncretic additions. By the time of the 2nd Council of Constantinople – with flocks being pulled away by many other sects - the time had come to get more forceful to preserve integrity and “Hell” was inserted into doctrines. (As Vermes notes about the “born again” references – e.g. “Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit....) Before that, reincarnation was accepted by more than half the original Church’s flock – following teachings by Origen of Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria.

Vermes further notes (p. 402, Epilog) Jesus “never chose to call himself ‘Messiah’ or ‘son of God’ and “even when others questioned him about his alleged Messiahship he usually declined to give a straight answer”. Vermes adds that as for the epithet ‘Son of God’- disallowing the combined expression “Messiah, the Son of God” in Matt. 26:63 (where the two are obviously used as synonymns) it is NEVER spoken by Jesus himself.

Vermes adds:

“One has to be foolish to believe the mockery of the chief priests and scribes, taunting Jesus to get down from the cross because he claimed to be the ‘Son of God’ (Matt.27:43) .

Indeed, he observes that “only demons or people possessed by demons addressed Jesus with this title” (Matt. 4:3, Luke 4:3, Matt. 3:11, Luke 4:41 etc) The “only example in which the disciples call Jesus the ‘Son of God’ and ‘worship him’ comes from a LATE LEGENDARY ADDITION by Matthew to the story of Jesus walking on the water “(Matt: 14:33).
Meanwhile, in the parallel passage in Mark (6:51-52) the astonishment of Jesus’ companions is caused not by walking on water but the earlier feeding of the five thousand.

As for "lake of fire" references (also a presumed destination of the unbeliever) this was originally in the Book of Mithras which predated Christian works, scriptures by HUNDREDs OF YEARS. It was the abode of "eternal perdition" for all those who refused to "eat of the body of the Son, Mithras". Thus, it was COPIED - like most other parts of the gospels, eschatological references from the Book of Mithras, NOT ANY ORIGINAL INSPIRATION!

The only rational solution is to dispense with ALL salvation doctrines. They are not needed and do not inspire anyone to be better – but only to comply in order to purchase an “afterlife insurance policy” – by conformance to a recipe.

Tebow's 'John 3:16' is such a recipe, which may suffice for the curiosity of the slow-witted and the gullible, but which should not be made the sine qua non objective for the truly intelligent and probing mind. No more than the recent appeals for Tebow to throw his ring in for the U.S. presidential nomination.

Eventually, finally, obsession and fascination with all things Tim Tebow will cease. Let us hope it happens as soon as this Saturday night!

What the Fundagelical Hell Mongers Still Don't Get

Well, it wasn't long at all before several fundie blogs reacted to my recent blog on "Hell",

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/even-if-hell-did-exist-its-nothing-to.html

in which I pointed out that even if it does exist there can't be any "fires" such as depicted in attached image above from a fundie's blog, nor can it be "everlasting" or "eternal". This is based upon the actual Greek translation for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 which is "kolasin aionion" - meaning temporary chastening. I then provided examples of what this might mean.

So in this light, let us look at some recent "clarifications" by the fundies in the wake of my blog:

"What these hellbound unbelievers are really embracing is annihilationism. That is the doctrine that the souls of the wicked will be snuffed out of existence rather than be sent to an EVERLASTING , CONSCIOUS HELL! When examined carefully in context , the Scriptures nowhere prove annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures , the concept must be rejected in every case. "

Actually, this is emphatically not so! We are conceding a putative "Hell" can exist, based on our own studies of theology, as well as the use of exegesis, which must include the correct translations of the original texts. As one Loyola Theology professor recently blogged at http://www.loyolamaroon.com/ the greatest frequency of biblical interpretation errors tend to occur with evangelicals who don't believe it's incumbent on them to use the original Greek translations in which the New Testament was mainly written. They believe they are 'good to go' once they just have a rough English version. But this isn't good enough.

So, as opposed to this blogger's claim of "annihilationism" - by which he really means rigorous physicalist materialism, no! What I mean is conditionally accepting the Hell doctrine, but as rigorously defined within the actual legitimate Greek translations of the New Testament.

So what he does is interject a straw man, asserting an artifact of his own invention that he insists we are trying to "prove" - but which we are not. He goes on:

"When we die , there is separation , NOT extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body ( James 2:26 ) , not the annihilation of the soul. "

Again, we are not claiming extinction but are already assuming the basis of: 1) an ongoing energy or individuated consciousness, and 2) a possible abode that may exist to chastise this energy if it is somehow degraded or deficient. So again, he's assigning claims and arguments we aren't making.

He goes on, untempered:

"There is also destruction , NOT nonexistence. "Everlasting" destruction would not be annihilation , which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction , then they have to have everlasting existence"

Here he goes off the rails, in making a claim ("destruction") which he's not supported by the actual Greek translations! We only concede, based on rigorous use of the Greek "kolasin aionion" a temporary chastisement, NOT destruction. Also "everlasting" is misused by him since the faithful Greek for the NT equivalents do not translate into permament but temporary.

Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bear more fruit." Meanwhile, "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time..

On the other hand, I am not questioning the claim of "enduring existence" such as if we presume human consciousness to be an individuated energy essence - possibly at the sub-quantal level - which can't be destroyed.

Once more his errors get the better of him:

"The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed , but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. Hence , so are the people in HELL!! "

But here he falls into the trap of false analogy with predictable results! Since cars, unlike humans, are insensate, i.e. feel no pain. So whether or not a car isn't annihilated in a junkyard is irrelevant to what happens to human consciousness in an afterlife. The point is that if that (sub-quantal) based consciousness persists, it cannot be "re-destroyed" (as I will subsequently show) over and over for any permanent period - so there can be no "Hell" as orthodox believers accept it.

Obviously, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out. Thus, Matthew 25:46 which embodies the Greek, "kolasin aionion", cannot mean "eternal punishment" but rather a "temporary punishment" or "temporary chastening. Thus, even IF Matthew 25:46 does refer to a real, putatively active "Hell" it can't be "eternal", only temporary only. (And as I shall show everlasting and eternal are not the same!) Since "Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion", then this argument applies to ALL forms, passages, words that contain these words, no exception.

He veers off further:

", Jesus repeatedly said the people in hell are in continual agony! He declared that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" ( Matt. 8:12 ; cf. 22:13 ; 24:51 ; 25:30 ). "

Again, he errs, this time in conflating "continual" with "eternal". While it is certainly feasible that in a punishment one can experience "continual agony" this doesn't itself identify the longevity as eternal. It could also be temporary, say as human experience in a place of horrors like Evin Prison in Iran, where prisoners are "continually" raped, brutalized, tortured etc. The Greek translation in that passage also bears out conformance with the use of "aionion" in Mt. 25:46.

As for the colorful "weeping and gnashing of teeth" - yes, but one can have that for a temporary punishment as well!

He moves on:

"Jesus also called hell a place where "the fire is not quenched" ( Mark 9:43-48 ) , where the very bodies of the wicked will never die ( cf. Luke 12:4-5 ). But it would make no sense to have everlasting flames and bodies without any souls in them to experience the torment."

Again, these passages cited are taken by most serious theologians as not being literate modern translations but rather later insertions. Indeed, the only NT citation that most literate theologians (in ancient Greek) accept for stating anything about "everlasting" punishment, is Matt. 25:46, but as we saw, when the Greek is faithfully translated then it comes out as temporary punishment.

Here a further point may also be introduced, one first made by the late Philosopher Joseph Campbell of Sarah Lawrence College. He made this point in his remarkable book "The Power of Myth" based on his own translations of NT texts. These disclosed a distinct difference between "everlasting" and "eternal". In his translation, "everlasting" wasn't a synonymn for eternal but for temporary. "Everlasting" meant "lasting until the prolonged epoch or eon ended". "Ever" emerges here as little different from saying something like "continous for the time being- no interruptions" and thus ending up with essentially the same meaning as the Greek for "Aionion" or the adjective form by which the epoch "pertains to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time"..

Campbell suggested that at some point, no one knows when, "everlasting" became mistaken for being the same as "eternal". When in fact, technically, "eternal" can only refer to an entity that pre-exists the condition of other (e.g. biological) entities that may emerge within it. However, so far as Christian orthodoxy frames it, their "souls" are not pre-existing but only come into existence at conception. In other words, the soul entity doesn't or can't pre-exist the biological matrix which demands a human egg become fertilized by a sperm cell.

Our author moves on:

"In a clear example of beings who were still CONSCIOUS after a thousand years of CONSCIOUS TORMENT in hell , the Bible says of the beast and the false prophets that "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" ( Rev. 19:20 ) before the "thousand years" ( Rev. 20:2 ). Also , the fact that the wicked are "punished with everlasting destruction" ( 2 Thess. 1:9 ) strongly implies that they must be conscious. One cannot suffer punishment without existence. It's no punishment to beat a dead corpse"

Again, my objection isn't to consciousness existing, I already indicated the presumption of a consciousness after death, for the sake of argument. Where I object is the conflation of "everlasting" with "eternal". I also query the use of word "destruction" as associated with a rational form of punishment presumed (by him). But in terms of usage, destruction contains the seminal meaning of no longer being available for ....whatever. Hence, one can have a ferocious punishment but not one which yields destruction that can then be reversed and commenced again. Once a thing is "destroyed", by proper English usage, it no longer exists, so his usage is contradictory.

This is why in physics the first principle of conservation (for mass-energy) reads:

"Mass-energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another".

Now, if one presumes consciousness to be a form of energy, then it also would be subject to the above, and hence, not able to be destroyed - meaning permanently expunged. Now, if it is asserted that it CAN be "destroyed" or subject to destruction, that automatically means permanently expunged so it cannot be re-done. One cannot therefore have "re-destruction" - which emerges as an oxymoron! Either something is "destroyed" or not destroyed, but it can never be re-destroyed!

What hyper fundie Christians need to do is make their minds up as to the meanings of their words, we can't be continually (get that!) spoon feed them or "forever" be assisting them in basic word logic.

More propagation of error:

"Hell is also said to be of the same duration as heaven , "EVERLASTING" ( Matt. 25:41 ). "

But again, by the Greek translation, this is not the same as eternal, but rather from the Greek "Aionion" "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time.. In effect, just as "Hell" so translated refers to a temporary period, so also does "Heaven". This leads us to conclude both are transitory states of consciousness.

Critical examination discloses the Bible speaks of five "aions"(minimum) and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past, it must logically mean that each one of them has ended! When one uses terms such as "past", "present" or "future" he's no longer referring to anything that's everlasting because the latter concept admits of no temporal distinctions!

All of this leads to one conclusion, and one only: While an after death human consciousness may (temporarily) experience an "eon" in "Hell" or "Heaven" its ultimate destination is what the Buddhists call "nirvana" or nothingness. Or as the Buddha once said, "all will become nothing".

Humanity's problem is that it is incapable of grasping nothingness, though it would help us to understand this had to have been the original state of things- e.g. before a putative Energy Being or "deity" sought to create anything. Hence, it would not seem that nirvana is the same as "annihilation" as these fundie bloggers appear to suggest.

Once more, nothing to fret over. Eventually we shall all end up in nirvana ....or nothingness.