conuly | People!

Okay, okay... I'm sorry about killing Jesus. I won't do it again.

I'll be totally sacriligious here and say that since he resurrected, that implies that he can be killed repeatedly - kinda like those punching clowns that rise up again after you knock them down? In which case killing him is good clean fun, because not only doesn't it do any harm, but it helps people be saved.

Sweetheart . . .

Has anyone suggested to you recently that maybe it's time to take a little break from the Internet? Just for a little while?

*blinks*

Okay, sure, *this* time it was prompted by the internet, but the last *three* times I gave this rant, it was entirely prompted by non-internet things - the stupid millenium and idiotic newspaper articles, the stupid millenium *again*, and, annoyingly, a stupid textbook.

I don't think I could even type back in 2000 and 2001.

Near as I can see, I've barely been online lately - the past week, I've been on more than I'd been in months, because I'm busy with The Kid. I've only been on more lately because Jenn's on maternity leave, and I'm Taking Advantage of Sleeping Late.

Unless by "recently" you mean "within the past hour" - my clock was stuck. Oops. *hies self to bed*

Thanks.

The reason the Jews are traditionally blamed is because they actually chose it. Pontious Pilot was willing to pardon Jesus and execute the other guy, but he let the people decide, and they chose to execute Jesus and pardon the other guy. He asked them why, since there was no very good reason, but they insisted, so he quite literally washed his hands of the matter. I still don't approve of blaming currently living people for things that happened thousands of years ago, but that's the reasoning behind it.

That story is almost certainly apocryphal. There is no record, anywhere else ever, of the Romans allowing one prisoner a year to go free. There's actually no reason I can come up with why they might have done such a thing, there's no reason for assuming that, even were such a thing an annual occurence, there were only two choices (as is written in the NT) and there is absolutely no reason at all to think that the obsessive-record-keeping A-type Roman Empire simply didn't bother to write this one lil' thing down.

We know what the friggin' Legionnaires ate for breakfast for cryin' out loud.

even if the story were true, the reason they chose a thief over a political activist is pretty obvious. the political guy was upsetting the powers that be™ (the romans), which is never a good thing™ for the masses when tptb™ get aggravated and send in the troops.

also, it was not the choice of every jew. at best it was the decision of the majority/all those present on the day.

the real reason christians came to blame the other jews is because they're a breakaway sect, and breakaways always have problems with the group they broke away from. otherwise, why would you break away?

a few hundred, and thousand, years of this, and it just becomes an irrational hatred for which there has to be a 'reasonable' explaination. other than "we disagreed with them" ...

the j man, like luther, was trying to reform the practices and administration of the religion, not change it. later he was held up to be the long awaited messiah - something which was at least equally controversial and divisive. those who began to promulgate this new variant of judaism were not popular initially. it was both a stroke of genius and a necessity to focus on the poor ...

Do something for me? Pretty please?

Go here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/adiva_calandia/39292.html) and offer your opinion.

*thinks a bit*

Wow. It's been a long time since I've read the Chronicles. (I felt bad after realizing they were all Christian Symbolism^TM.)

I should re-read them before I offer opinions.

Oh, OK. You were the person I thought of first, though. Thanks for looking.

actually, the real reason there was no year 0 ... the christian calendar begins from the purported birth of some guy who got nailed to some dead tree bits coz he didn't like some of the things going on at the time. [political reformers rarely get a good rap until after they're dead and the movement finally achieves something.]

there could be no 0th year of their 'lord'. there was a first year, and a second year, and so on. they got their maths wrong, but what the heck. you do better in a big old building somewhere by candle light using crushed rock, water, some goats skin and a stick.

the concept of nothing existed, but the idea of having some representation for nothing just didn't makes sense to europeans. not until they encountered the mathematics and engineering being used by their opponents/captives/captors/trading partners during & between crusades ...

The Jews didn't kill Jesus. It was actually the Romans. The romans actually succeeded in having the Jews on Masada killing themselves to save themselves from the Romans but this of course took place a few centuries later. Christians were looking for a scapegoat to blame someone else. They chose the Jews because they were picked on for centuries. So there you go. Sorry I had to write it.

*coughs*

I kinda knew that. I was commenting on the complete illogic used by people who didn't realize they were using a scapegoat

:-) i just had to point it out. as a judaic studies major, it bothers me when ppl say the wrong thing.

Oh my goodness. That brings back childhood memories of me taking ages to wrap my head around the concept that the day of my birth wasn't actually my first birthday.

And then when the year 2000 came around I remember arguing back and forth with people about whether the next thousand years would start with the year 2000 or the year 2001... until someone finally told me that there was no year zero and I just went "oh". I don't know why I had always assumed there was.

I didn't have a problem with that one because of a smart-assed comment that was perfectly right.

"Who starts counting what you've got at zero?"